Exclusive, monogamous relationships are disgusting. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Exclusive, monogamous relationships are disgusting.

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 05:42 PM
That's my opinion. It honestly repulses me, the idea of being in a relationship. Literally............it makes me want to throw up. I hate it, I think it's archaic, I think they are inherently moralistic, I think they are inherently sexist, for women and men, in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, I think it's desperate and needy, and I don't understand why people would restrict themselves to only one person and put parameters on their freedom that wouldn't be there otherwise. I hate it. That doesn't mean I don't support these relationships, though. I love to see loving couples embrace and enjoy one another. But I still hate it for myself in every single way.

Why do people want to get married, knowing it's an institution that is inherently unnatural, that is based on a way of thinking that has been eliminated far ago, and understanding MOST relationships fail? MOST marriages fail, yet people still want to marry? That really perplexes me. It's a waste of time and for me, it's basically a piece of paper from the government saying your relationship is valid, which is an intrusion of personal freedom and privacy.

Anyway, what does everyone here think? Yes, I've made similar threads like this, but I've always tried to be PC about how I really felt. Not anymore.




P.S. Mods, I PLEAD that you do not merge this thread. PLEASE do not do so. Thank you.

samanosuke
03-01-2012, 05:56 PM
you had really fulfilled life till you were banned when the first ban free day your are going berserk with opening the threads, like when child gets a candy . mods have to be very careful with next eventual ban because in your case may leave permanent consequences, not just on virtual life

emotion
03-01-2012, 05:59 PM
I'm not personally a fan of the idea of monogamy, but I do like the idea of holding romantic feelings for someone, even if not the lone sexual partner. And exclusive relationships aren't disgusting, it's just a personal choice.

Garson007
03-01-2012, 06:09 PM
I think it would be more natural to promote open relationships, polygamy and so forth. There are of course societal issues. Firstly marriage is ingrained into society's view of morality. Secondly, society is built around this moral view.

It's almost impossible to break the mould yet still fit into society. It doesn't matter if science tells us that it's better for rats to have a bunch of female parents that look after all the children, rather than just one mother - it's about the systems in place in society.

munZe konZa
03-01-2012, 06:46 PM
I think it would be more natural to promote open relationships, polygamy and so forth. There are of course societal issues. Firstly marriage is ingrained into society's view of morality. Secondly, society is built around this moral view.

It's almost impossible to break the mould yet still fit into society. It doesn't matter if science tells us that it's better for rats to have a bunch of female parents that look after all the children, rather than just one mother - it's about the systems in place in society.

Marriage is about sacrifices and is all about procreation. Without marriage a man would never know that the baby is his and the wife would never know that she would be supported to bring up a baby at least in the all important infancy. Those not interested in certain sacrifices and procreation should do whatever they want for however long they can.

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 06:59 PM
And that's one of my main beefs when it comes to marriage: Why would anyone intentionally put themselves in a position where they HAVE to sacrifice things in their life, and their own personal freedoms, just to attain a piece of paper? As for children, people have and will marry without having a child, so that to me is just an opinion, that marriage is for procreation. The truth is marriage was originally a business transaction between two families, or arranged marriages that were set up by families/society. All the other moralistic bullshit didn't enter the picture until organized religion entered the picture, which is another reason why I never will marry.

I also think children, while I love them, are a burden I don't want to deal with at all, because now on top of living for yourself, you're now living through someone else plus having to take care of a child who can't provide for itself. So you're basically providing for three people now. Life is hard enough providing for yourself.

Garson007
03-01-2012, 07:00 PM
munZe konZa: Yeah, but society has power to change that. The only reason we have the current paradigm is because it works within the society we have.

peribsen
03-01-2012, 07:27 PM
From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a moments notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp) are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates (lucky they). Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckling the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way..... (and with an infant mortality rate probably over 70%, that was very much mandatory for assuring survival).

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

We often forget we've had the pill for about 50 years, the rubber for about 120, the industrial revolution for about 200, a really competent agriculture for a few millenia, writing for less than 5,000, bows and arrows for about 10,000... but we've been surviving barefoot and armed with a stick and a chunk of stone for many hundreds of thousands of years before all that.

Garson007
03-01-2012, 07:34 PM
From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a seconds notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp)are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates. Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckingl the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way.....

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.
Nothing you list here actually corroborates your claim. What you're really saying is that humans are weak on their own. That's why we're a tribal society. It's also why we'd all stay together for as long as possible and the easiest way for that to happen is for all the men to form sexual bonds with all the women, i.e. spreading them oxytocin. It's also why the Greek legions had intercourse with each other.

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 07:35 PM
but I do like the idea of holding romantic feelings for someone, even if not the lone sexual partner.

I agree, I love feeling a romantic connection towards a guy I'm in to. But that doesn't mean I would want to date him. You can have a romantic connection with someone and choose not to date them.

This leads me to raise another point: A lot of people confuse lust and love, thinking their passionate lust towards someone they are attracted to actually is a feeling of everlasting love and completion with that individual by your side. Not the case.

peribsen
03-01-2012, 07:48 PM
Nothing you list here actually corroborates your claim. What you're really saying is that humans are weak on their own. That's why we're a tribal society. It's also why we'd all stay together for as long as possible and the easiest way for that to happen is for all the men to form sexual bonds with all the women, i.e. spreading them oxytocin. It's also why the Greek legions had intercourse with each other.

I beg to disagree. Although what you state would be a possible alternative solution to the problem, humans, unlike other social animals, have a mind that is very particularly rigged around ideas of self. In fact, one of the reasons monogamy is believed to have turned from long-lasting to almost life-long is that in-fighting over paternity issues may have been the most destructive menace afflicting early human groups. There are solid evidences in many mythologies that this was the case.

And, by the way, there never were any such things as "Greek legions". Greeks fought in phalanxes, legions are Roman.

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 08:32 PM
From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.
Natural=Produced by or present in nature.

Marriage is a man-made institution. Full-life monogamous relationships are rare in the animal kingdom overall. It is unnatural by definition. Just because it's "traditional" does not mean it is natural to marry. Marriage developed as a means for families to trade and share assets and to reduce the incidence of disease with children, who were dying regularly post-birth due to disease. Also, many marriages were arranged; basically a person with a high-social status would marry an individual with a low social-status, and that marriage was nothing more than a business relationship more than anything else. Marriage has virtually NOTHING to do with love in the original sense. You can love someone and choose not marry them.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a moments notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp) are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates (lucky they). Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckling the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way..... (and with an infant mortality rate probably over 70%, that was very much mandatory for assuring survival).

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

We often forget we've had the pill for about 50 years, the rubber for about 120, the industrial revolution for about 200, a really competent agriculture for a few millenia, writing for less than 5,000, bows and arrows for about 10,000... but we've been surviving barefoot and armed with a stick and a chunk of stone for many hundreds of thousands of years before all that.Basically my South African friend said almost exactly what I was going to say, but I will add that, ultimately, none of this means that humans are equipped to be in exclusive, monogamous relationships. Yes, what you are saying is true, but none of it particularly means one has to be in a relationship. A woman doesn't have to be in a relationship to have sex, have a child, nor to take care of a child, now that doesn't mean it isn't an ideal circumstance, for certain reasons, but it's not necessary. As for bonobos, you raise a good point there, since bonobos are the animal closest to humans biologically; there are many differences between most species and female humans in regards to female humans' menstrual cycle compared to other species' estrous cycles, but none of the reasons really prove that everlasting, exclusive relationships work at the end of the day, or are actually beneficial.

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 08:37 PM
The reason why monogamous relationships came about were about children dying due to disease, famine, lack of wealth leading to children being forced into labor and industries such as sex trade from an early age, and other reasons. That is at least that aspect of the reasoning why monogamous relationships came about. But we're now in 2012, so why are we living in accordance to what happened so long ago? Why hasn't the human species progressed beyond this way of thinking? That's the issue.

Sunset of Age
03-01-2012, 10:08 PM
Filo, do you even believe in long-lasting relationships being possible, no matter if they are legally confirmed as 'marriages' or not?

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 10:12 PM
They are possible but what it takes to maintain them isn't worth the hassle of being in them. Positive/negative list, and the negative list is longer than the positive list, at least that's how I see it, so therefore, I think it's a negative situation overall.

Johnny Groove
03-01-2012, 11:09 PM
I prefer monogamy.

Instead of making love to a million women, I'd rather make love to one woman a million ways.

This way also takes out of the equation all jealousy and all other kinds of bullshit.

Federer? Nadal? Djokovic? All have one, long term woman.

Sunset of Age
03-01-2012, 11:44 PM
They are possible but what it takes to maintain them isn't worth the hassle of being in them. Positive/negative list, and the negative list is longer than the positive list, at least that's how I see it, so therefore, I think it's a negative situation overall.

Well it might be just me, but I am rather happy to have been in a long-lasting relationship for over 10 years right now. Not married, neither of us has any inclination to do so. We're just, uhm... HAPPY. :shrug:

Filo V.
03-01-2012, 11:53 PM
Well it might be just me, but I am rather happy to have been in a long-lasting relationship for over 10 years right now. Not married, neither of us has any inclination to do so. We're just, uhm... HAPPY. :shrug:

This is good. Because that shows me your relationship is real. People in a real committed relationship don't feel any desperation to marry and don't need a title on their relationship to validate it.

You're one of the lucky ones, hun. One of the lucky few.

Seingeist
03-02-2012, 12:01 AM
:lol:

OK. I see that you've decided to return from your ban as more of a troll than ever.

Thread = farce.

/thread.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 12:48 AM
I've always been told by my grandparents that when you have to resort to attacking the person who has an opinion you disagree with, that means you don't have a valid position of your own. I now can see why this was something they stressed I not do in a debate of any kind.

Arkulari
03-02-2012, 05:57 AM
With all due respect Francis, you don't have the right to bash (because that's what you're doing) people for having choices different from yours.

Have you ever been in a committed relationship? (a really committed one, not someone you had slept with a couple of times) if you haven't then how can you tell they are bad? you cannot judge by what you see in others, you have to live it and if it doesn't fit you then ok, move on and have tons of meaningless hookups.

I had a fair share of boyfriends and hookups when I was younger and those felt ok at the time, I sow my wild oats and know both sides of the coin, I chose the one that I thought it was best for me.

To you the concept of love is so "bullshit" because you're not even able to love yourself completely besides your looks, so you cannot understand how people can love others, it's a foreign concept to you.

Marriage is an option, it gives you many legal benefits in the long run if you share space with someone, I don't think everyone should get married but I don't see why people shouldn't, I chose to do it and I'm happy with my choice, no one pressured neither Mikel not me to do it, we did it because we wanted to share everything.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of choice and no one should feel pressured to stay single, have a relationship or get married, you do what makes you happy.

peribsen
03-02-2012, 12:39 PM
Natural=Produced by or present in nature.

And Man is part of Nature. Your view is extremely anthropocentric. It's a bit surprising coming from you, since the tendency to place mankind outside -and in opposition to- Nature is very much a religious construct. I don't understand some peoples refusal to acknowledge that, first and formeost, we are animals.

Marriage is a man-made institution.

Marriage (for life, legal contract, social subunit, religious implications involving guilt, etc), is certainly cultural. But long lasting cohabitation by a breeding couple is a circumstance of our biology. It came way before marriage.

Marriage developed as a means for families to trade and share assets and to reduce the incidence of disease with children, who were dying regularly post-birth due to disease. Also, many marriages were arranged; basically a person with a high-social status would marry an individual with a low social-status, and that marriage was nothing more than a business relationship more than anything else.

You are talking perhaps 6-8,000 years (since the start of the Neolithic and the creation of class distinctions). I'm talking roughly about 1.8-2 million years (since the genus Homo started using tools and leaving traks of a lifestyle that differed widely from that of other apes). Perhaps even longer, if the genus Australopithecus can be proved to be a bit more human-like in its behaviour patterns.

Marriage has virtually NOTHING to do with love in the original sense. You can love someone and choose not marry them.

You are talking love, I'm talking species survival. And there is no such thing as 'the original sense of love', love is a highly sophisticated concept that came much later down the evolution trail. Our 'original' concerns were feeding, mating and surviving. Romance, existencial anguish and doubts about the origin of things seeped into the picture slowly, and much later than instinctual drives for survival.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 03:10 PM
With all due respect Francis, you don't have the right to bash (because that's what you're doing) people for having choices different from yours.I'm not bashing the choices of others, because I know, if a person is happier in an exclusive, committed, monogamous relationship than the other possible alternatives, that's their life and their choice. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's disgusting for me, because it is disgusting for me. It does repulse me, and has basically since I was a pre-teen. It's a personal opinion and not meant as an attack on others, but I will also not lie and say that yeah, I think people are making a mistake and wasting their life by getting in a relationship. But I can't make people see things the way I do.

Have you ever been in a committed relationship? (a really committed one, not someone you had slept with a couple of times) if you haven't then how can you tell they are bad? you cannot judge by what you see in others, you have to live it and if it doesn't fit you then ok, move on and have tons of meaningless hookups.No.................because literally the idea has disgusted me since I was 13. I've ALWAYS said, since little, I will never be in a relationship, I hate the idea of it, I hate the concept of it, and it's not for me. I've consistently said this throughout my life and it's something I've asked myself, why, exactly do I feel this way? It's not a conscious choice I've made, it's just a natural inclination.

I had a fair share of boyfriends and hookups when I was younger and those felt ok at the time, I sow my wild oats and know both sides of the coin, I chose the one that I thought it was best for me.Great for you, glad you're happy, do what is good for you. That's life.

To you the concept of love is so "bullshit" because you're not even able to love yourself completely besides your looks, so you cannot understand how people can love others, it's a foreign concept to you.The concept of love isn't bullshit to me. Love exists. I love love and I love to be loved. I love a lot of people, I have people in my life who I care for deeply and certain passions that are very important to me. I'm not just in love with myself, although yes, I do love myself, and that shouldn't be an issue or derided. We all should be in love with ourselves, and love ourselves first and foremost, and put ourselves above anyone else. Me, myself, and I, that's all you have in this world at the end of the day because, ultimately, your body is your body, your life is your life, and you only have one. Is that me being stuck up and conceited? Not really, just brutally honest. If you have a heart-attack, being in love with someone ain't gonna fix your heart. If you get in a car accident going to work, being in a relationship won't heal your injuries any quicker. That's just how it is.

I love myself beyond my looks. I'm thoughtful, I'm courteous. I give back to my community and realize there is a bigger picture in the world outside of me and my life. But are my looks and my appearance in general my #1 priority? Yes. Having that as a priority of mine, being attractive and having an appearance that gives me what I want, doesn't mean I don't have other facets to my personality as well. We all have certain segments to our being that are most central to who we are as individuals as a whole, and for me, that just happens to be my appearance. Being looks-centric isn't something that should be derided or criticized.

Marriage is an option, it gives you many legal benefits in the long run if you share space with someoneMarrying for legal benefits=not a real relationship, in my eyes. That is NOT a reason to marry someone whatsoever, a couple with true love for one another doesn't feel a need to slap the title of marriage on their relationship and don't need to have government define and validate their relationship. And why people would seek increased government intrusion in their lives intentionally, I have no idea.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of choice and no one should feel pressured to stay single, have a relationship or get married, you do what makes you happy.I agree. No matter my opinion, I can't force an adult human being to do something against their will, anyway. Their life, their choices.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 04:21 PM
And Man is part of Nature. Your view is extremely anthropocentric. It's a bit surprising coming from you, since the tendency to place mankind outside -and in opposition to- Nature is very much a religious construct. I don't understand some peoples refusal to acknowledge that, first and formeost, we are animals.What I am saying is intentionally very simplistic. Of course, humans are animals at the end of the day, and we are apart of nature. I guess, at the end of the day, that does make marriage "natural" in that it's something humans produce/engage in, who are apart of nature. But that doesn't mean marriage is a naturally-occurring institution, as it is not. It's a fabricated institution that is present in nature. Monogamy in general, is a fabrication, and what humans consider "normal" relationships is culturally/socially constructed.


Marriage (for life, legal contract, social subunit, religious implications involving guilt, etc), is certainly cultural. But long lasting cohabitation by a breeding couple is a circumstance of our biology. It came way before marriage.Long-lasting cohabitation by a breeding couple is essentially 100% based on procreation, and is unnecessary otherwise. Females are solely a procreative tool in this scenario. A male takes a female who they see as desirable and a genetically compatible; they come together with the intent to have a child; they copulate and create life; the female takes care of the child, and the male provides for the household. The thing is, often time, the male would go off and engage in intercourse, regularly with OTHER MALES, while the female is carrying. Any of this sound familiar? Of course, the same things are happening now. A guy knocks a woman up, then sleeps around with men and/or women with her having absolutely no clue of his extracurricular activities. All of this doesn't sound very healthy to me, though. A majority of women today don't desire to live a life of a housewife while the man gets to live out his life and make the bacon. Women want independence and the ability to make their own pathway in the world. Marrying takes that away from women, because marriage, and relationships in general, are rooted in these gender-stereotypical notions of existence. Women are "supposed" to be the care-givers, taking care of everyone and not putting themselves first; if she does different, she's a bad partner. If a woman seeks out a life of independence, she's trying to be like a man. If a woman has sex for reasons outside of procreation, she's a whore. This is all unhealthy and why the entire mentality surrounding marriage and long-term relationships, and marriage and long-term relationships in themselves, are ultimately a negative for humanity.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 04:38 PM
You are talking perhaps 6-8,000 years (since the start of the Neolithic and the creation of class distinctions). I'm talking roughly about 1.8-2 million years (since the genus Homo started using tools and leaving traks of a lifestyle that differed widely from that of other apes). Perhaps even longer, if the genus Australopithecus can be proved to be a bit more human-like in its behaviour patterns.None of this makes relationships, as they are currently defined and currently seen as by human society, a necessity for anyone to enter. Which is essentially the entire point I've been making this whole time.


You are talking love, I'm talking species survival. And there is no such thing as 'the original sense of love', love is a highly sophisticated concept that came much later down the evolution trail. Our 'original' concerns were feeding, mating and surviving. Romance, existencial anguish and doubts about the origin of things seeped into the picture slowly, and much later than instinctual drives for survival.No, I am not talking about love, personally. The truth is, that's why most people say they marry, because they love their partner, although the origin of marriage has nothing to do with love, and although love is not a reason why a male-female in whichever individual species pair together. Love is completely irrelevant when it comes to relationships because you can love someone and not be in a relationship with them.

green25814
03-02-2012, 04:44 PM
That's my opinion. It honestly repulses me, the idea of being in a relationship. Literally............it makes me want to throw up. I hate it, I think it's archaic, I think they are inherently moralistic, I think they are inherently sexist, for women and men, in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, I think it's desperate and needy, and I don't understand why people would restrict themselves to only one person and put parameters on their freedom that wouldn't be there otherwise. I hate it. That doesn't mean I don't support these relationships, though. I love to see loving couples embrace and enjoy one another. But I still hate it for myself in every single way.

Why do people want to get married, knowing it's an institution that is inherently unnatural, that is based on a way of thinking that has been eliminated far ago, and understanding MOST relationships fail? MOST marriages fail, yet people still want to marry? That really perplexes me. It's a waste of time and for me, it's basically a piece of paper from the government saying your relationship is valid, which is an intrusion of personal freedom and privacy.

Anyway, what does everyone here think? Yes, I've made similar threads like this, but I've always tried to be PC about how I really felt. Not anymore.




P.S. Mods, I PLEAD that you do not merge this thread. PLEASE do not do so. Thank you.

Scientifically speaking, you are wrong, monogamy is in our genetic make-up, we are a monogamous species. To put it bluntly, humans get jealous. Its the same reason why when a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the previous male's offspring.

Obviously, this genetic make-up doesn't stop humans from 'cheating', but it does make living in an open non-monogamous relationship very difficult. Has the OP actually lived with more than one partner at the same time? There's a reason its so rare, its unnatural to us.

edit: I see you aren't actually in favour of polygamous relationships, you just disagree with sexual relationships in general. Ok. Problem there is we are social animals. We need relationships. Why do you differentiate between sexual relationships and relationships based on friendship? In your scenario, any relationship is a waste of time because it takes too much work and can cause pain etc. If thats the case, I feel sorry for you dude.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 05:28 PM
Scientifically speaking, you are wrong, monogamy is in our genetic make-up, we are a monogamous species. To put it bluntly, humans get jealous. Its the same reason why when a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the previous male's offspring. Is that why the overwhelming majority of humans are incapable of monogamy? If this were true, monogamy would be the norm from culture to culture, and it isn't, to this day. Jealousy doesn't make monogamy a necessity. Jealousy is an emotional trait, not a logical one. It's not as if jealousy can not be avoided; it can be avoided. All it takes is a mentality change. And a shift from an emotional way of responding to things, to a logical, thought-based process.

Obviously, this genetic make-up doesn't stop humans from 'cheating', but it does make living in an open non-monogamous relationship very difficult. Has the OP actually lived with more than one partner at the same time? There's a reason its so rare, its unnatural to us.Relationships in general fail, regardless of they being polygamous or monogamous. Polygamy isn't unnatural, no more so than monogamy is. It's shunned throughout most societies, but it still occurs and there are long-lasting poly-relationships that occur the same way there are monogamous relationships which occur.

I see you aren't actually in favour of polygamous relationships, you just disagree with sexual relationships in general.I don't disagree with sexual relationships...........just the idea that relationships are at all a necessity or somehow an ideal for all.

Ok. Problem there is we are social animals. We need relationships.True, but that has nothing to do with needing an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one individual person.

Why do you differentiate between sexual relationships and relationships based on friendship? Because a relationship isn't a relationship until sex enters the picture.

In your scenario, any relationship is a waste of time because it takes too much work and can cause pain etc. If thats the case, I feel sorry for you dude.I'm happy, don't feel sorry for me. I'm single and loving it!

green25814
03-02-2012, 06:57 PM
Is that why the overwhelming majority of humans are incapable of monogamy? If this were true, monogamy would be the norm from culture to culture, and it isn't, to this day. Jealousy doesn't make monogamy a necessity. Jealousy is an emotional trait, not a logical one. It's not as if jealousy can not be avoided; it can be avoided. All it takes is a mentality change. And a shift from an emotional way of responding to things, to a logical, thought-based process.

Relationships in general fail, regardless of they being polygamous or monogamous. Polygamy isn't unnatural, no more so than monogamy is. It's shunned throughout most societies, but it still occurs and there are long-lasting poly-relationships that occur the same way there are monogamous relationships which occur.

I don't disagree with sexual relationships...........just the idea that relationships are at all a necessity or somehow an ideal for all.

True, but that has nothing to do with needing an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one individual person.

Because a relationship isn't a relationship until sex enters the picture.

I'm happy, don't feel sorry for me. I'm single and loving it!
Well I think the bolded part is the issue for me dude, yes relationships fail but that doesn't stop them being worth it. I've had about ten or so different sexual relationships during my life and barring a couple of shitty ones, they've definitely improved the quality of my life and I wouldn't go back in time to change anything.

There's nothing to stop a monogamous relationship from ending amicably. Sure you can on occasion end up with a bad ending, but unless your a teenager its really not that big a deal.

Also you need to look up the definition of friendship dude, its definitely a relationship, sex or no sex.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 07:31 PM
Well I think the bolded part is the issue for me dude, yes relationships fail but that doesn't stop them being worth it.You're entitled to that opinion, but the way I see it, the time an individual spends with whoever they were with during that period of time they were in a relationship, was a waste of time, since it ended in failure. That time could have been spent finding your true soulmate, or being single and not having the pain/drama/stress/disappointment that comes with ending a relationship, or trying to maintain a relationship destined to fail. If I ever decide to date, it's 'till death would do us part, and nothing else.

I've had about ten or so different sexual relationships during my life and barring a couple of shitty ones, they've definitely improved the quality of my life and I wouldn't go back in time to change anything.I'm happy for you :wavey:

That doesn't mean, though, that happiness couldn't have been found being single, though. I think if a person sees their relationship as a "completion" of their life, instead of an addition, then they have to figure out what hole is in their OWN PERSONAL life that makes them believe being in a relationship will somehow make them feel better about themselves, or that somehow that fleeting feeling of happiness with that person you're in a relationship with will last. It generally doesn't last which is why exclusive, committed relationships fail most of the time.

There's nothing to stop a monogamous relationship from ending amicably. Sure you can on occasion end up with a bad ending, but unless your a teenager its really not that big a deal.This is true. But the way I see it is, a failed relationship is a failed relationship. And you can't change the past. You can't erase history. That relationship with your ex-mate is forever changed. Is it worth it? I don't think it is.

Also you need to look up the definition of friendship dude, its definitely a relationship, sex or no sex.Never said it wasn't. A friendship is a relationship, but it's not an exclusive, monogamous relationship with the TITLE relationship that puts it in a different category than a regular friendship. When two friends have sex, the line has crossed between just being friends, to being more. Friends with benefits, at the very least. Because now the relationship is more than just two people enjoying each others' company. But now, the two individuals involved have essentially declared their attraction and desire for one another on a deeper level than just wanting to hang out. When that line is crossed, things change, regardless of if you want them to or not.

green25814
03-02-2012, 08:03 PM
You're entitled to that opinion, but the way I see it, the time an individual spends with whoever they were with during that period of time they were in a relationship, was a waste of time, since it ended in failure. That time could have been spent finding your true soulmate, or being single and not having the pain/drama/stress/disappointment that comes with ending a relationship, or trying to maintain a relationship destined to fail. If I ever decide to date, it's 'till death would do us part, and nothing else.

I'm happy for you :wavey:

That doesn't mean, though, that happiness couldn't have been found being single, though. I think if a person sees their relationship as a "completion" of their life, instead of an addition, then they have to figure out what hole is in their OWN PERSONAL life that makes them believe being in a relationship will somehow make them feel better about themselves, or that somehow that fleeting feeling of happiness with that person you're in a relationship with will last. It generally doesn't last which is why exclusive, committed relationships fail most of the time.

This is true. But the way I see it is, a failed relationship is a failed relationship. And you can't change the past. You can't erase history. That relationship with your ex-mate is forever changed. Is it worth it? I don't think it is.

Never said it wasn't. A friendship is a relationship, but it's not an exclusive, monogamous relationship with the TITLE relationship that puts it in a different category than a regular friendship. When two friends have sex, the line has crossed between just being friends, to being more. Friends with benefits, at the very least. Because now the relationship is more than just two people enjoying each others' company. But now, the two individuals involved have essentially declared their attraction and desire for one another on a deeper level than just wanting to hang out. When that line is crossed, things change, regardless of if you want them to or not.

Only in terms of not sleeping with them anymore. I've stayed friends with quite a few ex-partners. It depends on what kind of a person you are. Having a sexual 'relationship' for me is akin to having a friend who you sleep with. So basically its twice as rewarding as a normal relationship. Its definitely worth it dude. You are missing out bigtime, but thats just my opinion.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 10:04 PM
Only in terms of not sleeping with them anymore. I've stayed friends with quite a few ex-partners. It depends on what kind of a person you are. Having a sexual 'relationship' for me is akin to having a friend who you sleep with. So basically its twice as rewarding as a normal relationship. Its definitely worth it dude. You are missing out bigtime, but thats just my opinion.I've had sex with friends too. My main best friend, Marty, we have had sex, not too long ago in fact, like 1.5 years ago. But the thing is, I admit I'm attracted to him, he's cute and I like him. It's not something we gloss over, he's attracted to me. When that line is crossed, then the line has been crossed. The only way to un-do having sex with a friend is not being friends with that person. Other than that, it's basically resisting the urge. It's understanding you want to fuck with that person but intentionally setting up a boundary for whatever reason. That's why friends-with-benefits situations virtually never work, because you're basically not allowing yourself to do what is natural, which is pursue someone you're attracted to, and not only that, you have close, personal contact with that individual. And you can't or won't pursue..............that's where things go wrong. Eventually, that pressure gets to you. So if someone is going to have sex with a friend, it's best to just keep it 100% real and not have any pretenses on the relationship at all. When you start distancing the sexual aspect of your friendship from everything else then you're not keeping it real. Sex either is or isn't part of the relationship, and on the table.

green25814
03-02-2012, 10:15 PM
I've had sex with friends too. My main best friend, Marty, we have had sex, not too long ago in fact, like 1.5 years ago. But the thing is, I admit I'm attracted to him, he's cute and I like him. It's not something we gloss over, he's attracted to me. When that line is crossed, then the line has been crossed. The only way to un-do having sex with a friend is not being friends with that person. Other than that, it's basically resisting the urge. It's understanding you want to fuck with that person but intentionally setting up a boundary for whatever reason. That's why friends-with-benefits situations virtually never work, because you're basically not allowing yourself to do what is natural, which is pursue someone you're attracted to, and not only that, you have close, personal contact with that individual. And you can't or won't pursue..............that's where things go wrong. Eventually, that pressure gets to you. So if someone is going to have sex with a friend, it's best to just keep it 100% real and not have any pretenses on the relationship at all. When you start distancing the sexual aspect of your friendship from everything else then you're not keeping it real. Sex either is or isn't part of the relationship, and on the table.

You've got it the wrong way round, I was saying for me an actual relationship IS a 'friend with benefits'. Thats exactly what a healthy relationship should be. If you connect with someone emotionally, and are also attracted to them, thats awesome, not bad. I'm confused by this idea of yours that a friend is something totally separate from a sexual partner. When people talk about having a long-term relationship, these are the things its gonna involve.

Filo V.
03-02-2012, 11:19 PM
You've got it the wrong way round, I was saying for me an actual relationship IS a 'friend with benefits'.I understood what you were trying to say, at least I thought I did...............personally, I think friends with benefits is friends with benefits. I don't consider that a relationship. It's a friend you have sex with. That's different than settling down with one person for life. Even then, friends with benefits, when you have sex with a friend, that line cannot be uncrossed.

Thats exactly what a healthy relationship should be. If you connect with someone emotionally, and are also attracted to them, thats awesome, not bad.It is awesome, but the question is the parameters of the relationship. Emotional and sexual attraction with someone is obviously a great thing, but taking the next step with that person and going from friend to fuck buddy or friend to relationship is a big step and changes the course of the entire relationship.

I'm confused by this idea of yours that a friend is something totally separate from a sexual partner.The way I see it, sex is the ultimately thing. It's THE deciding factor. It's the #1 aspect of the entire package. When you fuck with someone, it's not just a friend anymore. When you fuck with someone you feel romantic attraction towards, then it's not just casual fun sex with a friend, it's deeper than that and there are deeper connections and emotions now involved. Now you're in FWB zone at the very least. Because now the situation isn't platonic. It's then about attraction, and you can't turn off your attraction to someone. You have to control it, but it never goes away. That's the danger about crossing the line, when you cross it, what happens when one person tries to move the line back to "friend" rather than "friends with benefits"? Resentment? Jealousy? General disappointment? What is one persons' line is at friends, and one is at friends with benefits, or even at committed relationship? What if that person becomes hooked? There are all sorts of potential dilemmas that are opened up in fucking with a friend. That's why parameters have to be SHARED AND SET BY BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED before engaging in intercourse with that friend, so there are no loose ends, or potential drama and confusion from either party.

When people talk about having a long-term relationship, these are the things its gonna involve.Again, it's all about what an individual defines the relationship. Is it a no-strings FWB deal or an actual "you're my #1" relationship. It's all about where the goalposts are. And sex, and everything revolving around that sex, is in my eyes, the ultimate decider of this.

green25814
03-02-2012, 11:30 PM
I think we see things differently because by your own admission you don't do 'relationships'. If I'm going to be in an actual relationship with a girl, then I need to connect with her emotionally. Sex is great, but I don't need to be in a relationship for that. Sex is kinda secondary here (I know that sounds odd coming from a guy) because if I'm attracted to a girl but find her annoying to talk to, I'm obviously not going to bother with a relationship. One night stand all the way. But if I'm looking for a relationship, the main thing is going to be 'do I want to live around this person?' If yes, then we see about sex. If that also works, we're good to go as far as I'm concerned.

I totally agree with you that if things end up going badly in the relationship things can be screwed up on both sides. I just think the benefits there outweigh the positives, while you obviously think the opposite. Agree to disagree

Chase Visa
03-02-2012, 11:34 PM
People get offended if their partner have sex with other people, that's why monogamous relationships are the norm.

2003
03-03-2012, 01:31 AM
Bro;

You gotta understand we allw ish we were like you.

But the truth is this, some of us have this needy thing in us, that makes us need someone, someone to kuddle, to kiss, to tell us they love us.

Your lcuk,y, some of us are just too needy. We really cant help it though.

Arkulari
03-03-2012, 03:07 AM
Is that why the overwhelming majority of humans are incapable of monogamy? If this were true, monogamy would be the norm from culture to culture, and it isn't, to this day. Jealousy doesn't make monogamy a necessity. Jealousy is an emotional trait, not a logical one. It's not as if jealousy can not be avoided; it can be avoided. All it takes is a mentality change. And a shift from an emotional way of responding to things, to a logical, thought-based process.

Relationships in general fail, regardless of they being polygamous or monogamous. Polygamy isn't unnatural, no more so than monogamy is. It's shunned throughout most societies, but it still occurs and there are long-lasting poly-relationships that occur the same way there are monogamous relationships which occur.

I don't disagree with sexual relationships...........just the idea that relationships are at all a necessity or somehow an ideal for all.

True, but that has nothing to do with needing an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one individual person.

Because a relationship isn't a relationship until sex enters the picture.

I'm happy, don't feel sorry for me. I'm single and loving it!

Well I know lots of couples that have been together for a long time (more than 20 years) without cheating because it isn't in everyone's mindset to want to look for something else.

Maybe you have seen relationships turning violent (not only physically), fights and cheating left right and centre but it isn't the case for ALL relationships.

Of course, I know my fair share of cheaters as well and I think those people should never enter a serious relationship because they don't have the capacity to be monogamous.

Once again, it all comes down to the personality, needs and goals of the people involved, so making a case for ALL mankind is statistically untrue.

Filo V.
03-03-2012, 04:20 AM
I think we see things differently because by your own admission you don't do 'relationships'. If I'm going to be in an actual relationship with a girl, then I need to connect with her emotionally. Sex is great, but I don't need to be in a relationship for that. Sex is kinda secondary here (I know that sounds odd coming from a guy) because if I'm attracted to a girl but find her annoying to talk to, I'm obviously not going to bother with a relationship. One night stand all the way. But if I'm looking for a relationship, the main thing is going to be 'do I want to live around this person?' If yes, then we see about sex. If that also works, we're good to go as far as I'm concerned.That pretty much clarifies everything and I agree with everything you're saying and it basically states everything I guess I haven't been expressing as well as I should. Basically, there are several categories of relationships, there are emotional relationships, sexual relationships, and relationships that are both emotional and sexual. Then there are other factors, such as the degree/strength of emotions and sex which are involved, but you really read my mind.

The way I see it, I have several friends who I share both emotional and sexual connections with. In fact, to have sex with someone, I need a spark. That is what drives me to get with someone, not necessarily looks and sexual interest, that's part of the package, but not the whole box. I need to feel the energy and passion. I can do this, and having emotional and sexual bonds and connections with people, without needing to put the "commitment" on it, without tying myself down with one person. That's how I operate.

Now, if I were seeking an exclusive, committed relationship, I'd do as you say, I'd put emotions first, like is this person right for me, do I share common interests and goals with them, can I see myself enjoying this persons' company for the rest of my life. I'm not, though, so I don't have to ask myself these things. I just go with the flow and have fun with people I like, without any inhibitions or strings attached.

I totally agree with you that if things end up going badly in the relationship things can be screwed up on both sides. I just think the benefits there outweigh the positives, while you obviously think the opposite. Agree to disagreeSounds fine with me, agree to disagree, I'm all for people doing what makes them happy and living their lives as they see fit :yeah:

Filo V.
03-03-2012, 04:23 AM
Bro;

You gotta understand we allw ish we were like you.

But the truth is this, some of us have this needy thing in us, that makes us need someone, someone to kuddle, to kiss, to tell us they love us.

Your lcuk,y, some of us are just too needy. We really cant help it though.I guess............I don't really understand it, why people would feel needy like that, but I do take your word for it, and yeah, I'm not going to completely attack people for doing what they want to do or feel they need to do to feel complete. It's not my life. What I do get is that we're all different and some people have different ways of operating, and if that includes some people desiring the feelings they receive by being in a relationship, so be it.

Filo V.
03-03-2012, 04:43 AM
Well I know lots of couples that have been together for a long time (more than 20 years) without cheating because it isn't in everyone's mindset to want to look for something else.My grandparents have been married over 40 years (at least, might be 50+ now, I forgot). I am semi-close friends with a gay male couple who have been together 22 years. But............this is rare. It is rare to see relationships last this long. The average marriage, at least in the US, averages around 5 years until divorce. And that doesn't take into account the separation rate, and couples who are no longer together but still legally married. The real number is probably in the 4 years range at most. That's just how it is. So, the way I see it, couples who have been together 20+ years are an outlier. And I have a lot of respect for couples who stick together and truly adhere to the "death do us part" symbolization of a truly committed long-term relationship. But that doesn't mean most people are capable of doing this, because facts show that isn't the case.

Maybe you have seen relationships turning violent (not only physically), fights and cheating left right and centre but it isn't the case for ALL relationships.True, but most fail. And I believe at least 50% of women and 25% of men have been/are abused in relationships. These are all facts. The facts are ugly. I'm not saying that every single exclusive, monogamous relationship is destined to end in train-wreck. But the reality is that most do not end positively. So, why would I enter a situation knowing, more likely than not, it will not last? Where is the upside? I don't see any. Risk is greater than the reward.

Of course, I know my fair share of cheaters as well and I think those people should never enter a serious relationship because they don't have the capacity to be monogamous.Agree 100%, but the pressures of global society that tell people they HAVE to be in a relationship or they are either sluts/pimps/whores/loose/etc. if they have sex outside of a relationship, or essentially unwanted losers that no-one wants to be with, entice people to enter in monogamous relationships when they either aren't ready or aren't prepared/mature enough to handle and accept what being in a monogamous relationship entails. Society is very much to blame for the entire crux of issues that surround individuals' attitudes/behavior on sex, on relationships, on their own identity and self-esteem when it comes to sex and relationships, and I can go on and on.

Once again, it all comes down to the personality, needs and goals of the people involved, so making a case for ALL mankind is statistically untrue.True.............it's all individualistic. I'm not in the position to tell others how to live their lives. But I also have to admit when I say I think I'm so obviously right and that everyone should have the mentality I do. And if they did, there would be a lot less drama, less stories of men shooting their children after killing their wife in a spousal dispute. A lot fewer workplace crimes where fired employees, who are desperate and angry because they can't provide for their families, shoot up their former employment office out of frustration. I'm anti-drama and the way I see things I think creates less drama. But it's my opinion, not for me to force it on anyone else.

VolandriFan
03-03-2012, 10:08 AM
But............this is rare. It is rare to see relationships last this long. The average marriage, at least in the US, averages around 5 years until divorce. And that doesn't take into account the separation rate, and couples who are no longer together but still legally married. The real number is probably in the 4 years range at most. That's just how it is. So, the way I see it, couples who have been together 20+ years are an outlier.

It's no coincidence that the divorce rate in America essentially mirrors the successful second wave of the feminist movement.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg

These days, women aren't willing and no longer have to put up with what they would have in the 50s and earlier. Women usually have the financial means and education to get by independently, and divorce is no longer social taboo either. Both genders have higher expectations of prospective partners, a greater understanding of what constitutes abuse and know full well that marriage doesn't have to mean forever. When a spouse no longer meets their needs, divorce is a viable and easily accessed option. Unfortunately, this lessens the value of the institution of marriage as it becomes completely disposable.

This doesn't mean love and monogomy do not exist though, it means that human-beings aren't easy creatures to please, and now that both parties are able to stand up for their rights, there's a bigger chance for a marriage to fail. America may have the highest rate of divorce, but it also has the fastest rate of repartnering and remarriage in the world. This means that to some degree, the average American still believes in marriage even after a divorce. To me (someone who has never been married), that says that the human spirit is resilient enough to endure a failed long-term relationship and still see the worth in pursuing another. I'm an idealist and I'd like to believe in the power of love, so I'm happy to say that I genuinely believe the "5 year" statistic doesn't paint the whole picture. Would it help if I said that 50% of all marriages still remain intact at the 20 year mark? That statistic itself could be explored, but I'm afraid I've rambled on enough already.

But to your point: the average courtship lasts 18-24 months, so even if the average marriage only lasts 5 years, you've still given 7 years of your life to one special person. Imagine the many invaluable experiences, important life lessons and (hopefully) all the joy that would be packed into those seven years. Better to have loved and lost...

Nathaliia
03-03-2012, 10:58 AM
marriage is politically incorrect these days

but no, it doesn't mean it is a bad thing by default

and it has been discussed very recently on mtf as well

Filo V.
03-03-2012, 04:24 PM
It's no coincidence that the divorce rate in America essentially mirrors the successful second wave of the feminist movement.

These days, women aren't willing and no longer have to put up with what they would have in the 50s and earlier. Women usually have the financial means and education to get by independently, and divorce is no longer social taboo either. Both genders have higher expectations of prospective partners, a greater understanding of what constitutes abuse and know full well that marriage doesn't have to mean forever. When a spouse no longer meets their needs, divorce is a viable and easily accessed option. Unfortunately, this lessens the value of the institution of marriage as it becomes completely disposable.Agree with everything said, but I don't consider it unfortunate in terms of the value of marriage lessening. To me, it's a great thing. People are becoming significantly more independent minded and are less strung by what moral arbiters say is the "correct" way to live...........more people are living for themselves rather than through others. That's for the betterment of the world as a whole. The fewer people who are essentially brainwashed into living in accordance to what I see as a restrictive and archaic existence, the better.

This doesn't mean love and monogomy do not exist though, it means that human-beings aren't easy creatures to please, and now that both parties are able to stand up for their rights, there's a bigger chance for a marriage to fail. America may have the highest rate of divorce, but it also has the fastest rate of repartnering and remarriage in the world. This means that to some degree, the average American still believes in marriage even after a divorce. To me (someone who has never been married), that says that the human spirit is resilient enough to endure a failed long-term relationship and still see the worth in pursuing another.I think that shows that, in U.S. society, traditional codes of living are still very much prevalent and expected. And that includes partnering with a "soul-mate" for life, getting married, and living the two cars, baby and dog "All-American" lifestyle. Western Europe has moved beyond this significantly, so have more liberal areas in America. Divorce and remarriage rates are highest in the South and conservative areas overall. That shows me that marriage is still a social requirement in these areas where "traditional values" cultural constructs are still the norm, and still something in the heads of individuals in these areas that is sacred and something a person is "supposed" to do. In these areas, marriage is still something that just naturally happens as you grow up, and even if you divorce, marriage is still seen as the ideal standard of living when you're older.

The human spirit factor certainly exists as well. If you want something bad enough, then, for most people at least, they're going to find a way to attain whatever goal they're seeking. In this case, what people want is that special someone. They want someone they can call "the one". Like you see in the movies, that special lover. And one failed relationship isn't going to deter many people from finding that special someone, wherever they may be. So, for people with this mentality, all failed relationships are just steps taken on the journey to everlasting happiness with their soul-mate.

Anyone whose life and happiness is in any way tied through what others do/say/etc. is someone, in my eyes, that has to take a step back and figure out what makes them tick and them INDIVIDUALLY happy. If you need to be with someone to be happy and feel complete, that's a problem. No human being can make you feel happy in your own skin. Being with a partner doesn't magically make things better on the long haul. You may feel fleeting happiness but eventually, when that's gone and you realize that you've married this person and the possibility is there to spend the rest of your life with that individual, what do you do?

I'm an idealist and I'd like to believe in the power of love, so I'm happy to say that I genuinely believe the "5 year" statistic doesn't paint the whole picture.I'm a realist :lol: It's good to be an idealist in certain situations I think, though. I believe in love, but the reality is, love alone isn't enough. It takes more than love to maintain a relationship, or to enter one at all with someone. The facts are, as the graph you linked indicate, that most relationships fail and have been failing at an increased rate. Marriage/relationships rates in general have been declining sharply. It's not, obviously, the most positive thing to talk about, but we can't deny the truths, and even if they don't paint a pretty picture, I do believe the picture most certainly has been drawn out.

Would it help if I said that 50% of all marriages still remain intact at the 20 year mark?Maybe..............but as you said, that's something that needs to be explored. Is that a correct statistic? And even if a couple may be legally defined as married, it doesn't mean they are still in a relationship. We don't know the health of the relationship, why they are still married, if it's for the kids or if they're actually still in love with one another. All we do know is that most relationships do in fact fail before 5-10 years, let alone making it 20+.

But to your point: the average courtship lasts 18-24 months, so even if the average marriage only lasts 5 years, you've still given 7 years of your life to one special person. Imagine the many invaluable experiences, important life lessons and (hopefully) all the joy that would be packed into those seven years. Better to have loved and lost...I agree with you on the life lessons aspect. You definitely have the opportunity to learn a lot that you can use for future relationships; you'll be more wise, more experienced, and hopefully a lot more mellow and realistic, given most people tend to enter their first relationship(s) with grand expectations and end up disappointed. But.............can you call someone who you had a relationship with that failed, "special"? Ultimately, if they were that special to you, you wouldn't have broken up. You would always want to be with that person, through thick and thin. Not saying you can't love that person afterward, enjoy time with that person, that the individual you broke up with doesn't still mean a lot to you, and the experiences shared with that person are worthless, but............does any of this make that individual a "special" person? Or just a person that you ultimately had fun with on a more intimate level than a simple friendship for a while, and that ride ended?

Filo V.
03-03-2012, 04:37 PM
marriage is politically incorrect these days

but no, it doesn't mean it is a bad thing by defaultI wouldn't necessarily say it's politically incorrect. Just progressively becoming "uncool".

But no, that doesn't make it a bad thing for people who don't think it is. For people who like the idea of marriage, then marriage will always be special and have value. It's just less people think this way these days, for the most part.

Arkulari
03-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Marriage is like saying you belong to a religion, it has gotten to be "not cool" these days and many people just let themselves follow it to be in the in crowd.

Mountaindewslave
03-04-2012, 06:10 AM
i don't know Filo V maybe because people are not all sluts and have hearts and care to an extreme amount about a particular one person?

i'm not sure about you, but I definitely don't want my chips to be dipped in everyone else's salsa. emotionally it's nice to have that one person you're with and you can trust and you can enjoy life with. see how happy you are if you trade for a different person all the time, because what you will end up with is no great bonds and just a lot of "ok" 'acquaintences'.

in a practical way your opinion of hate for monogamous relationships doesn't even make sense, because if your belief was adopted commonly the # of diseases would spread rapidly if everyone slept and got with different people throughout life again and again. people settling down with one another is healthy.

so both because of the value of a special bond and to some degree medical reasons, monogamous relationships rock and are totally good for the world

Filo V.
03-04-2012, 05:40 PM
i don't know Filo V maybe because people are not all sluts and have hearts and care to an extreme amount about a particular one person?Sexual doesn't=slut. You can have a lot of sex, and not be a slut. And slut-shaming is wrong, also. There is nothing wrong in being sexually active as long as you're in control of yourself, your body and not harming anyone else in the process.

You can love a lot of people an extreme amount, and care for them deeply, and not enter in a relationship with them; I think we all have many people we love, yet have not dated nor plan to date in the future. I care deeply for my friends, I care deeply for my parents and my family...........but that doesn't mean I'm obligated or desire to be in an exclusive, monogamous relationship with them.

i'm not sure about you, but I definitely don't want my chips to be dipped in everyone else's salsa. Good, neither do I. I have standards, but I also don't have inhibitions or restrictions. I have freedom. And I wouldn't trade that for anything.

emotionally it's nice to have that one person you're with and you can trust and you can enjoy life with.Good point.............but you can have that without a relationship. You can have that with a friend or family member. A relationship is not necessary to have this.

see how happy you are if you trade for a different person all the time, because what you will end up with is no great bonds and just a lot of "ok" 'acquaintences'. Personally, I am friends with several of the men I've been with sexually. I've had sex with several of my friends. I don't have sex with someone unless there is a spark. It's not just hit-it-and-quit-it, with me at least, and not with others either. You're not really trading for a different person because you don't have a commitment. There is no sole "person", there are no strings attached. It's just 2 or more people have a great time and sharing great moments together. And for me, those moments, yeah they may be sexually, but there is an emotional and affectional connection as well. That's what makes it meaningful to me.

in a practical way your opinion of hate for monogamous relationships doesn't even make sense, because if your belief was adopted commonly the # of diseases would spread rapidly if everyone slept and got with different people throughout life again and again. people settling down with one another is healthy.Not only are there more sexually active individuals without diseases than there are those who do have an STD, but there are people in relationships who have/get an STD, either when their partner cheats and brings an STD home, or if they/their partner had an STD previous to entering this relationship without their knowledge. The risk factor is higher in getting an STD if you're sexually active and not in a relationship, but it's certainly not a definite that one will get an STD by being sexually active and single. Ultimately, safe sex practices are safe sex practices, regardless if your in a relationship or single, and if you adhere to these practices, you most likely will not get an STD. I've been with over 50 men and never had an STD, so it can and quite frankly, should, be done.

so both because of the value of a special bond and to some degree medical reasons, monogamous relationships rock and are totally good for the worldDo what makes you happy, we're all entitled to our opinions :):wavey:

EliSter
03-04-2012, 08:53 PM
I'm not personally a fan of the idea of monogamy, but I do like the idea of holding romantic feelings for someone, even if not the lone sexual partner. And exclusive relationships aren't disgusting, it's just a personal choice.

Not always possibile , cause in most of the times sex can carry amount of feelings towards the person you are doing it with , i know many girls that refuses to sleep with any guy if they doesnt feel any kind of feeling towards him, for guys its a bit different.

Mountaindewslave
03-04-2012, 09:05 PM
Do what makes you happy, we're all entitled to our opinions :):wavey:

we are all entitled to our own opinions but you posted basically a 'hating on monogamous relationships' thread ha. you must expect a strong reaction!

I understand what you are saying in that if someone sleeps with more than person it does not make them automatically a 'slut', I used that word rather rashly.

like think about it though, later in life it is such a beautiful thing (not that I've gotten to this point but still) to be able to look back at all of the things and experiences you've had with one particular person. You are right in that you can have a lot of experiences with a # of people ongoing throughout life BUT if you divide your journeys and adventures in life between so many, don't the relationships stop being particularly special?

I certainly think they would lose their value. it's sort of like a toss up, either one extreme strong dedicated relationship, or a multitude of endearing ones that aren't as strong.

i just hope you can see the beauty of sharing everything with one person who you love more than the moon, the earth, or the sun! or life itself

Filo V.
03-05-2012, 01:08 AM
we are all entitled to our own opinions but you posted basically a 'hating on monogamous relationships' thread ha. you must expect a strong reaction! Well.............I've said this consistently throughout my time on this forum. I honestly didn't expect a strong reaction, I was just putting my feelings out there in a matter-of-fact way. I just thought people would either agree or disagree, and that's it, really, but I also wanted to provoke discussion on the matter and learn the other side of the argument and why others would think opposite of what I do on relationships.

I understand what you are saying in that if someone sleeps with more than person it does not make them automatically a 'slut', I used that word rather rashly.Glad you admit that...........that's a real issue in society that creates sexual repression and make people scared to discuss sex or have the sex they want; the whole you're a slut and immoral if you don't partner with one individual in a monogamous relationship. That simply isn't something everyone desires and no-one should be made to feel somehow "wrong" because of that.

like think about it though, later in life it is such a beautiful thing (not that I've gotten to this point but still) to be able to look back at all of the things and experiences you've had with one particular person. You are right in that you can have a lot of experiences with a # of people ongoing throughout life BUT if you divide your journeys and adventures in life between so many, don't the relationships stop being particularly special?I don't think so, I think life is full of special moments, and it's not necessarily about who those moments are with, but the moments themselves. A special moment is a special moment, regardless of it's with a boyfriend/girlfriend, best-friend, with family, or just an individual moment.

I certainly think they would lose their value. it's sort of like a toss up, either one extreme strong dedicated relationship, or a multitude of endearing ones that aren't as strong.It could go the either way too, though------the multitude of friendships can equal out to be stronger than the one sole relationship. Or one extremely close friend could be more special to you than any relationship ever could become. Different experiences with different people.

i just hope you can see the beauty of sharing everything with one person who you love more than the moon, the earth, or the sun! or life itselfI see the beauty in love. Love is beautiful. We all need love in our lives. Love ourselves, love others, be loved by others. Sharing an intense love with one special person is a beautiful thing for those who have found that. But still...............you can love one individual person intensely, and not be in a relationship with them. It takes more than that to ultimately maintain a long-lasting, exclusive, monogamous relationship.

Sunset of Age
03-05-2012, 01:13 AM
How about just letting everyone live their life the way they enjoy it the most?
For a massive majority of folks - at least after some 30 years of age or so, when the 'raging hormones' have died down a bit :angel: - that will be together with a genuine, loving friend in a monogamous relationship, in which one both find trust, peace, friendship, companionship, the share of interests and values of life, and help when times are bad. And yes, good sex as well.

I truly cannot see anything wrong with that, as hard as I try.
Therefore, the title of your thread seems a little bit obnoxious to me, Filo.

Filo V.
03-05-2012, 01:26 AM
How about just letting everyone live their life the way they enjoy it the most?
For a massive majority of folks - at least after some 30 years of age or so, when the 'raging hormones' have died down a bit :angel: - that will be together with a genuine, loving friend in a monogamous relationship, in which one both find trust, peace, friendship, companionship, the share of interests and values of life, and help when times are bad. And yes, good sex as well.

I truly cannot see anything wrong with that, as hard as I try.
Therefore, the title of your thread seems a little bit obnoxious to me, Filo.Well, of course, people are going to live their lives as they see fit. I cannot force someone to believe the way I do against their will. We're all wired different and have our own personal views. But, I definitely do not see my thread title as obnoxious for the simple fact it's exactly what I think about exclusive, monogamous relationships. It DOES disgust me, literally. I genuinely DO get sick thinking about it, and it makes me nauseous. That's just how it is; it's not me trying to force myself to think this way, I'm not trying to even attack people who think differently. I just disagree with the entire scope of the arguments surrounding the reasons why people enter relationships and I am averse to committed relationships in general.

A genuine, loving friend that you find trust, peace, friendship, companionship, the share of interests and values of life and help, through good times and bad, with good sex in between, can be found and accomplished without entering a relationship with that individual. Heck........you can find that with more than one person in your life. None of it means that you have to partner with that individual in a monogamous relationship. Taking that step simply opens your friendship up to an entirely new set of standards and potential pitfalls that wouldn't exist if you didn't enter the relationship in the first place. Don't fix something that ain't broken, I say.

But again, that's me. I'm speaking for me. If others feel differently, that's their choice and I'm not anyone to condemn a person for choosing a different path for their own lives. It ain't my life, so, ultimately, it's not something I will stay awake day and night thinking about.

Sunset of Age
03-05-2012, 01:30 AM
^^ That's perfectly okay with me.
I just rather share my good & my bad times with one truly understanding and loving person than with a whole bunch of them, if only to save my breath and energy. I've got plenty of other things to do in my life as well. ;)

I might well have been lucky to find that one person, I'll go as far and admit that.

Filo V.
03-05-2012, 01:33 AM
^^ That's perfectly okay with me.
I just rather share my good & my bad times with one truly understanding and loving person than with a whole bunch of them, if only to save my breath and energy. I've got plenty of other things to do in my life as well. ;)

I might well have been lucky to find that one person, I'll go as far and admit that.I'm happy you're happy :hug:

Sunset of Age
03-05-2012, 01:36 AM
I'm happy you're happy :hug:

:inlove: :lol: Compliment returned, Filo. ;)

tripwires
03-05-2012, 01:36 AM
I need to be in a monogamous relationship because I am jealous and possessive. :)

Filo V.
03-05-2012, 01:45 AM
:inlove: :lol: Compliment returned, Filo. ;)
:):kiss:

Filo V.
03-05-2012, 01:46 AM
I need to be in a monogamous relationship because I am jealous and possessive. :)Does being in a monogamous relationship actually fix/hide these two traits for you if I may ask :lol:

tripwires
03-05-2012, 01:52 AM
Does being in a monogamous relationship actually fix/hide these two traits for you if I may ask :lol:

Nope. :p I can't do open relationships because I can't stomach the idea of my partner seeing/dating/fucking other girls. :angel: For me it's pretty easy to tell when I stop loving someone: when I stop caring when other girls hit on him or when he tells me he was tempted to sleep with someone else.

Filo V.
03-05-2012, 02:18 AM
Nope. :p I can't do open relationships because I can't stomach the idea of my partner seeing/dating/fucking other girls.:angel: That's understandable...............I personally would just ask for a threesome :p

For me it's pretty easy to tell when I stop loving someone: when I stop caring when other girls hit on him or when he tells me he was tempted to sleep with someone else.Honestly, I sort of wish a guy would just cheat on me outright than say something like that :hysteric:

StevenHoward
05-07-2013, 04:38 PM
From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a moments notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp) are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (cheap lingeries (http://www.robustbuy.com/womens-clothes-lingerie-sets-c-1083_1085_1088.html) manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates (lucky they). Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckling the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way..... (and with an infant mortality rate probably over 70%, that was very much mandatory for assuring survival).

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

We often forget we've had the pill for about 50 years, the rubber for about 120, the industrial revolution for about 200, a really competent agriculture for a few millenia, writing for less than 5,000, bows and arrows for about 10,000... but we've been surviving barefoot and armed with a stick and a chunk of stone for many hundreds of thousands of years before all that.

I really liked the way you expressed your thoughts. It is indeed too little chance of long term relationship same as human beings. Thanks for sharing your views

HKz
05-07-2013, 07:24 PM
I'm not personally a fan of the idea of monogamy, but I do like the idea of holding romantic feelings for someone, even if not the lone sexual partner. And exclusive relationships aren't disgusting, it's just a personal choice.

Exactly this. My wife and I have a pretty unique relationship. We know we find other people attractive so we both pursue meeting other people here and there (sometimes together :devil:), however, we always come back home and we know that the true emotional and long-term relationship is between us. People who claim they really only have eyes for their spouse is IMO living in a forest where no one else is around or is lying. Everyone here and there has caught themselves thinking of a different person's attractions. The only difference is that many keep it to themselves and nothing happens while my wife and I will openly share those feelings.

Such a relationship is DEFINITELY not for everyone. A couple we knew tried the exact same thing and they quickly ran into marital problems. The guy met a few girls, then fell for a particular girl, started ignoring his wife and spent more time with this new girl than he did with his wife. Their relationship quickly spiraled down...luckily they had no kids to be in the mess. Typically such a relationship is much more difficult for a man as women normally end up with a different man because of a lack of emotional tie with their significant other whereas men are more much sexually based. So if the man can keep his wife emotionally happy, generally women don't see the need to get tangled up with someone else. Of course these are heavy generalizations. For us, I'm not exactly sure why we have been able to have such a life without any marital problems. I mean we first consider each other as our best friend rather than spouse and having a child together certainly has added a extra layer of long term commitment.

Anyways, my 2 cents. I'm sure plenty won't agree but hey that's OK, the world needs variance in everything.

One note I will leave on, is that many relationships fail merely because society has created a false blueprint on many of these things such as marriage which people should not follow. It is like raising children, there is typically no book to use as a guide yet many people follow some type of script created for relationships. I'm not saying that a "typical" relationship is completely wrong, because for many couples the stereotypical relationship works and keeps them happy. But as social creatures, our needs differ considerably so the only real rule in a relationship is communication. It sounds so cliche as I'm sure anyone who has gone through a rough patch with their spouse has certainly cited a lack of "communication" as being the main issue. As long as you and your relationship know where you stand all the time (because again, our likes and dislikes will change over time) there will never be confusion which hurts the other person.

From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a moments notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp) are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates (lucky they). Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckling the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way..... (and with an infant mortality rate probably over 70%, that was very much mandatory for assuring survival).

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

We often forget we've had the pill for about 50 years, the rubber for about 120, the industrial revolution for about 200, a really competent agriculture for a few millenia, writing for less than 5,000, bows and arrows for about 10,000... but we've been surviving barefoot and armed with a stick and a chunk of stone for many hundreds of thousands of years before all that.

Your info has nothing to do with a monogamous relationship. It just merely points out that humans are social animals that require the consistent socializing of multiple humans in order to successfully breed on and create new generations. Nothing you listed points specifically as evidence to a long term monogomous relationship between one human male and one human female. In fact, people who practice polygamy could point out the exact reasons you listed as evidence that polygamy could have been a very primitive type of socializing between males and females.

I'm not saying your information is wrong or that monogamous relationships are unnatural, but certainly what you pointed out proves nothing in terms of what type of human bonding is most "natural."

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-08-2013, 01:59 AM
Been married 4 and a half years before that I slept with over a hundred women, feel like I can offer some perspective

Neve.r believed in love until a settled down, sex was great and all but I was missing something that my cock couldn't provide for me. There's a level of intimacy and depth you just can't find from prodding your thing in someone.
There are emotional depths you have to explore, but to do that you need to completely trust someone.

I believe an open relationship or fucking around stunts that kind of development.

I don't know about how gays play their relationships out, honestly don't care to know, but I got to thinking everyone needs someone they can depend on to be there for them, to support them, and to always be loyal to them, it's hard to feel like someone is completely yours if there out poking their stick in every bush they find.

Then again, some people only want to get cheap thrills.