Is monogamy becoming an underrated value in our society?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would argue monogamy is much easier. You know what to expect, when and how to expect it, and what the outcome might be. When you deal with tons of people, hard telling what you will get. It is far stressful for me to be single than to be in a relationship.

Easiest for me is cooping myself up in my room and only talking to intimate friends and family, so...

[Napoleon]

I would argue monogamy is much easier. You know what to expect, when and how to expect it, and what the outcome might be. When you deal with tons of people, hard telling what you will get. It is far stressful for me to be single than to be in a relationship.

Easiest for me is cooping myself up in my room and only talking to intimate friends and family, so...

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I would argue monogamy is much easier. You know what to expect, when and how to expect it, and what the outcome might be. When you deal with tons of people, hard telling what you will get. It is far stressful for me to be single than to be in a relationship.

Easiest for me is cooping myself up in my room and only talking to intimate friends and family, so...

My life.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I am a free spirit. I can't coop myself up for long or I will go insane. Like they say at Taco Bell, live mas

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm a monogamist but I don't see it as waning... people who aren't are just more open about it.

[opebo]

...falls under the umbrella of dissent being confined to socioeconomically irrelevant categories of behavior.

It isn't necessary to make all your behaviors socioeconomically relevant dissent, Tweed.  Nor do I suspect that most promiscuous behave in this way due to a desire to 'dissent'.  It is more that one sees nothing 'in' monogamy, just like one sees nothing in religion, and so forth.  Just leave it alone.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Monogamy no.

Long-term romantic commitment (between two or more people, with or without sexual exclusivity) very very much yes.

This.

If we have come to accept, after centuries of denials, that genuine feelings of love can emerge between two people of the same sex, I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that it might be possible for a person to develop genuine feelings or love for more than one person at the same time.

Obviously, "polygamy" as practiced in modern days and in history, is something disgusting and generally oppressive toward women. So voted yes.

[opebo]

Obviously, "polygamy" as practiced in modern days and in history, is something disgusting and generally oppressive toward women. So voted yes.

What the hell, again with the infantilizing of women.

[Kitteh]

Obviously, "polygamy" as practiced in modern days and in history, is something disgusting and generally oppressive toward women. So voted yes.

What the hell, again with the infantilizing of women.

Are you really going to deny that historically polygamy (which in the majority of cases has meant polygyny) has been oppressive of women in the vast majority of cultures where it has been practiced?

That's not saying monogamy hasn't either, quite the opposite.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obviously, "polygamy" as practiced in modern days and in history, is something disgusting and generally oppressive toward women. So voted yes.

What the hell, again with the infantilizing of women.

If it's a choice between infantilization and commoditization, I rather think it's obvious. Infants are a type of person, after all.

_____

For what it's worth, I do think there's rather more honor to be had in polyamory than in sexually open but romantically exclusive relationships, although I don't understand and would never participate in either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would argue monogamy is much easier. You know what to expect, when and how to expect it, and what the outcome might be. When you deal with tons of people, hard telling what you will get. It is far stressful for me to be single than to be in a relationship.

Easiest for me is cooping myself up in my room and only talking to intimate friends and family, so...

My life.

Mine too... though not entirely by choice.

[opebo]

If it's a choice between infantilization and commoditization, I rather think it's obvious. Infants are a type of person, after all.

Why do you assume people want monogamy, Nathan, just because they're female?  Monogamy is tiresome and boring for everyone, regardless of gender. The only reason women have traditionally supported it is that it is an expensive form of prostitution.

For what it's worth, I do think there's rather more honor to be had in polyamory than in sexually open but romantically exclusive relationships, although I don't understand and would never participate in either.

How can you possibly comment on these issues?  You have no sexuality, no gonads - as you have told us many times.

 

[Beet]

Girls are the worst when it comes to this. They all want to love a story like The Notebook or whatever, and if that doesn't happen, they grow flaky. Part of the reason my ex and I broke up after 2 and a half years was distance and because her perfect love story was falling apart. She did not want to work on it or try to work through the distance, which was temporary, and instead just wanted to end it.

That fits in with what women have told me, I find they're more likely to have the following order of preference:
Be with someone they're crazy about > be alone for life > "settle" for someone

Men, I find, tend to be less picky.

[Kitteh]

Girls are the worst when it comes to this. They all want to love a story like The Notebook or whatever, and if that doesn't happen, they grow flaky. Part of the reason my ex and I broke up after 2 and a half years was distance and because her perfect love story was falling apart. She did not want to work on it or try to work through the distance, which was temporary, and instead just wanted to end it.

That fits in with what women have told me, I find they're more likely to have the following order of preference:
Be with someone they're crazy about > be alone for life > "settle" for someone

Is that really wrong though? To me, "settling" seems like the worst of both worlds, the loss of freedom and independence of a relationship without the closeness and emotional connection of one. I look at my parents, for example, who were "married" only in the sense that they owned their house jointly and filed taxes together, but never showed any real love for each other, slept in separate beds, etc. That sounds like hell to me personally. I think the order of preferences you gave is the most rational, unless you have a strong desire to have children, stronger than your romantic desires, and you don't want to have to deal with the problems of single parenthood (not that there's anything wrong with being a single parent, but it's a lot of work). Since I don't even want kids, that doesn't apply to me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If it's a choice between infantilization and commoditization, I rather think it's obvious. Infants are a type of person, after all.

Why do you assume people want monogamy, Nathan, just because they're female?  Monogamy is tiresome and boring for everyone, regardless of gender. The only reason women have traditionally supported it is that it is an expensive form of prostitution.

When did I assume that 'people want monogamy just because they're female'? (People regardless of gender I think should want monogamy, in whatever sense of the word 'should' you choose to apply, but whether or not they in fact do I can't speak to with any authority.) What I imagine a lot of people would want is for the likes of you not to hold forth on what they do or don't want out of relationships or what does and doesn't constitute infantilization, because most people don't hate themselves enough to think that it's a good idea to listen to you. There are in any case infinitely worse things in this world than being tired or bored, even accepting your (false) premise that not getting one's dick wet with an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of women has to be uninteresting unless one makes it so. I'm tired and/or bored a good solid majority of the time and I survive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How can you possibly comment on these issues?  You have no sexuality, no gonads - as you have told us many times.
[/quote]

Which disqualifies me from having moral opinions...why, exactly? If anything, concupiscent perverts such as yourself have a blatant conflict of interest.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why don't I ever learn my lesson and decide not to enter a sex-related thread?

As for the question, what is 'our society'? I imagine my parents' expectations in this regard are quite different to (some of) my peers. Yet I can live in more than one world.

[Beet]

Girls are the worst when it comes to this. They all want to love a story like The Notebook or whatever, and if that doesn't happen, they grow flaky. Part of the reason my ex and I broke up after 2 and a half years was distance and because her perfect love story was falling apart. She did not want to work on it or try to work through the distance, which was temporary, and instead just wanted to end it.

That fits in with what women have told me, I find they're more likely to have the following order of preference:
Be with someone they're crazy about > be alone for life > "settle" for someone

Is that really wrong though? To me, "settling" seems like the worst of both worlds, the loss of freedom and independence of a relationship without the closeness and emotional connection of one. I look at my parents, for example, who were "married" only in the sense that they owned their house jointly and filed taxes together, but never showed any real love for each other, slept in separate beds, etc. That sounds like hell to me personally. I think the order of preferences you gave is the most rational, unless you have a strong desire to have children, stronger than your romantic desires, and you don't want to have to deal with the problems of single parenthood (not that there's anything wrong with being a single parent, but it's a lot of work). Since I don't even want kids, that doesn't apply to me.

Well, there's nothing really wrong with it. Although (here comes the 'but') I suppose in an earlier time it would have been termed 'selfish'. As people then did get married and did have children simply because they were expected to, and they didn't have so many choices. The arranged marriage, the idea of love growing with time, the idea of commitment, and so on. Having children, initially, is a sacrifice for the continuation and growth of the community. It isn't really supposed to make yourself happier at first.

[opebo]

When did I assume that 'people want monogamy just because they're female'? (People regardless of gender I think should want monogamy,

Why?  What is the purpose?

I'm tired and/or bored a good solid majority of the time and I survive.

But for what purpose?  That's like arbitrarily saying you must eat peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches when there is also ham-and-cheese in the fridge.  There's just no point to denying yourself. 

Which disqualifies me from having moral opinions...why, exactly? If anything, concupiscent perverts such as yourself have a blatant conflict of interest.

In what way is this issue 'moral', Nathan?  It is just a matter of taste.  Your claim that desiring to have sex is 'perverse' is I think demonstrably untrue: the great majority of men do desire it, and thus it is in some sense a 'norm'.

[afleitch]

Girls are the worst when it comes to this. They all want to love a story like The Notebook or whatever, and if that doesn't happen, they grow flaky. Part of the reason my ex and I broke up after 2 and a half years was distance and because her perfect love story was falling apart. She did not want to work on it or try to work through the distance, which was temporary, and instead just wanted to end it.

That fits in with what women have told me, I find they're more likely to have the following order of preference:
Be with someone they're crazy about > be alone for life > "settle" for someone

Is that really wrong though? To me, "settling" seems like the worst of both worlds, the loss of freedom and independence of a relationship without the closeness and emotional connection of one. I look at my parents, for example, who were "married" only in the sense that they owned their house jointly and filed taxes together, but never showed any real love for each other, slept in separate beds, etc. That sounds like hell to me personally. I think the order of preferences you gave is the most rational, unless you have a strong desire to have children, stronger than your romantic desires, and you don't want to have to deal with the problems of single parenthood (not that there's anything wrong with being a single parent, but it's a lot of work). Since I don't even want kids, that doesn't apply to me.

Well, there's nothing really wrong with it. Although (here comes the 'but') I suppose in an earlier time it would have been termed 'selfish'. As people then did get married and did have children simply because they were expected to, and they didn't have so many choices. The arranged marriage, the idea of love growing with time, the idea of commitment, and so on. Having children, initially, is a sacrifice for the continuation and growth of the community. It isn't really supposed to make yourself happier at first.

Part of the problem is the constant 'interchangability' of marriage with sex for the raising of children; the idea that you have to have the marriage in order to have the sex in order to have the children. It's sex which leads to children and this has always has been the case. The other offshoot of this is the fairly recent societal demand that those who had the sex to have the children should raise them. While this has never really been the case at all it still remains an unreasonable ideal. All humans, sociopaths aside, have the ability to be care givers. It is often the parents or their extended family but that should never be exclusive. The idea of the 'nuclear family' while thankfully fleeting in practice was very much contrary to the traditional of care giving, yet people still hark back to it.

Also women always get the short end of the straw on this one; they can never fully escape their biology where as men can quite literally f-ck and go.

[Beet]

Well yes, it all has to do with the separation of the family from the economic unit. Before, the family was more than just something private; it was an enterprise. If your dad was a weaver, than you were likely to be a weaver, too, and likely inherit your dad's business. Today, you are likely to go off to university and study sociology. The result is something of a collective-action problem with regard to reproduction. Society needs children, but individuals don't gain as much from them as they used to. The nuclear family was a half-way house on this path. But yes, it is silly to say that the biological parents must be the caregivers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

When did I assume that 'people want monogamy just because they're female'? (People regardless of gender I think should want monogamy,

Why?  What is the purpose?

Developing a sense of continuity and familiarity; developing and/or imposing or having imposed a sense of loyalty; learning humility by coming to define one self partially in relation to a specific other person; learning discipline, if one is one of those kinds of people for whom this difficult for some reason--need I go on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But for what purpose?  That's like arbitrarily saying you must eat peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches when there is also ham-and-cheese in the fridge.  There's just no point to denying yourself.  [/quote]

Ham is disgusting, too, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what way is this issue 'moral', Nathan?  It is just a matter of taste.[/quote]

opebo, almost every issue is somehow or other moral.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Desiring to have sex to the obsessive or near-obsessive extent that you do is perverse, pervert. Social norms can certainly be perverse relative to some higher ideal.

[afleitch]

Desiring to have sex to the obsessive or near-obsessive extent that you do is perverse, pervert. Social norms can certainly be perverse relative to some higher ideal.

I have to disagree with you on that point alone. Sexual desire for another adult itself is not a vice no matter how many times you actually desire to have it. I personally (and for this discussion don't mind being open about it) have a fairly constant sexual desire. Now it doesn't stop me going to work or pissing about this forum, but it does drive me to obtain an outlet for that at least once a day. I however choose to do so within a relationship and a marriage.

[Kitteh]

Yeah, not to defend opebo, but I dont see how having a particularly high sex drive is at all immoral or perverse. Now, you can debate whether the way opebo goes about satisfying his is moral, but that's a separate issue.

[opebo]

When did I assume that 'people want monogamy just because they're female'? (People regardless of gender I think should want monogamy,

Why?  What is the purpose?

Developing a sense of continuity and familiarity; developing and/or imposing or having imposed a sense of loyalty; learning humility by coming to define one self partially in relation to a specific other person; learning discipline, if one is one of those kinds of people for whom this difficult for some reason--need I go on?

So those things are your 'bag', your 'kink', your perversion, Nathan.  Please don't try to flaunt them at those of us who find them disgusting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

opebo, almost every issue is somehow or other moral.

But you can't make arguments simply based on your own preferences, Nathan, they're of little interest to other people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Desiring to have sex to the obsessive or near-obsessive extent that you do is perverse, pervert. Social norms can certainly be perverse relative to some higher ideal.

What're you talking about, friend?  I have sex an average of, at best, once or twice a week.  I haven't any obsession about it.  Now, it is a fact that it is, of life's little necessities, by far the most difficult to obtain.  Perhaps that's why you mistake my moderate, average interest in it with an obsession.   In point of fact I'm far more obsessed with food and sleep, but, as it happens, those things are very cheap and easy to obtain.

[Beet]

Sex is not a necessity of life, opebo.

Also, there's a difference between moral beliefs and ideals, and sexual kinks or preferences.