Two’s Company
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
From PostSecret:
I think people could reasonably assume I sent this in except mine’s not really a secret anymore.
Exploring fantasies and expanding your horizons together as a couple=cool.
Doing something because you’ve been forced, pressured, manipulated, or out of a warped idea of submission or needing to please a partner=not cool.
Why does that have to be so complicated? It’s not, but you don’t hear it in abstinence only sex ed, I wouldn’t know about sex ed, and my fundamentalist parents never taught me a thing beyond the most basic of basics.
To the anonymous sender, I feel your pain.
Loading ...
February 7th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
MEH .. Edited away.. my wording on this topic stank.
read the give and take with jemand for better understanding of the opinion I was trying to give but really just confused everyone. I’ll try harder next time..
February 7th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
“Imagine an opposite world where one spouse wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you”
In a limited sense, isn’t this *exactly* what friends, parents, children, heck even pets actually ARE? When you have a second child does it mean you reject the first? If you have more than one friend ever does it mean it isn’t a real friendship? If you love BOTH parents… it’s not love? I can understand how some people wish to remain monogamous, but please, don’t start lecturing others about how their love “isn’t real.” We have enough of comments like that from another individual
If a couple plays chess together, but once in awhile, one of them goes to play chess in a club, would the other partner always HAVE to throw a fit because now there’s “proof” that their company isn’t valued “above all others.” The truth is our lives are RICHER when we involve others, not poorer. For the people who want to extend that to their sexual or relationship lives, I don’t see how or WHY you would want to undermine their experiences as “not real love.”
February 7th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
re:
jemand Says:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
“..In a limited sense, isn’t this *exactly* what friends, parents, children, heck even pets actually ARE? When you have a second child does it mean you reject the first?”
No that wouldn’t fit, as we don’t have sexual relations with any of these and we don’t have dates or have intimacy with these examples, (or at least we shouldn’t)
Where do you get that I called someone’s love not real love?
I think you Doth protest too much.
I take it you’re trying to assuage a personal experience here?
So you think that humans are not normally monogamous, and that marriages handle multiple partners just fine?
I have personally been in an orgy and I saw that in that one night two couple’s relationship shredded. (I was single then). If you were a guy, I would know where your fantasy was coming from, but I don’t understand this coming from a woman (per social pressures).
In chess we are playing to impress our opponent with our abilities, in love we want mutual respect and adulation. If in a relationship we ever give the other person a reason to think that they aren’t good enough, we damage the relationship, period, no exceptions. If perhaps one could theoretically do multiples without undermining the others psyche then it is possible to do what you propose, but statistically very very unlikely.
Finally I’m on no crusade to make people do anything, I don’t care as long as no one gets hurt. Heck, if it can truly be craftily arranged as such and no one is to be pushed along, heck good for them! But I’d bet against the marriages with cold hard cash any day, as the follower in the relationship almost always has unvoiced reservations and hurt feelings.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:08 am
you are elevating your personal sexual preferences to “universal rule” status. That just doesn’t work, there are people who just do not experience jealousy or require exclusivity. You say “fine, but I bet their marriage will fall apart.” That’s not really allowing for true variation, it’s saying “I think what they call love isn’t real because it’s not what I would want.”
And I kind of dislike how you are using sexist stereotypes to be surprised a defense of polyamory is coming from a woman. There have been posts on Daylight Atheism and Friendly Atheist both by guest female writers speaking to the health and morality of their long term multiple relationship. Read Greta Christina for another atheist woman who is not monogamous and yet is happily married long term to her wife.
Even redheadskeptic, who is personally monogamous and wouldn’t be interested in a multiple relationship, writes “Exploring fantasies and expanding your horizons together as a couple=cool.” It’s you who are saying that anything not holding to your personal preferences for a relationship is quite likely to fail.
As for friends and family, you said “Imagine an opposite world where one spouse wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you, they want to add a person, because they say “it would cheer them up”.” When I said, that’s what friends and family ARE, you brought up sex. Regardless of how in your initial statement you were explicitly stating sexual fidelity, but wider emotional connections.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
jemand,
When someone say’s “I’d bet” they are expressing their opinion and any variables they perceive are included.
If you’d reread that line you would see that I said PER PEER pressure. That is not stereotyping. you’re trying too hard to read misogyny into this.
I most certainly am not saying that anyone has to hold to my beliefs of sexual normalcy, I don’t really have any.
I made the comment for the express purpose of reflecting what I had read and what I have seen about the common feeling of betrayal and /or loss of respect that is often not voiced by the more submissive partner.
I agree that with you that it is possible for it to work out, I have heard of examples. But what percentage of non-monogamous marriages last 10 years or more in your opinion?
There’s no rule book that says you have to have a long lasting marriage, some people don’t ever want marriage, there’s nothing “wrong” with them.
Stating that multiple partner couples don’t tend to stay married because of unvoiced concerns is not unlike saying that gays die with aids in higher rates than hetero’s. That statement is not homophobic at all. Saying that it’s due to a punishment from god is. I never said or implied any morality in the comment, you did.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
re:
jemand Says:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
““Imagine an opposite world where one spouse wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you”
In a limited sense, isn’t this *exactly* what friends, parents, children, heck even pets actually ARE? ”
You either aren’t clear enough for me or you still are reading this wrong. If I replace the word “spouse” in the example, with one of the people you suggest, it does not follow. For example:
“Imagine an opposite world where one “child” wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you”
“Imagine an opposite world where one “friend” wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you”
“Imagine an opposite world where one “parent” wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you”
Could you clarify this better?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
“Imagine an opposite world where one spouse wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to emotionally faithful to you” whoah, you certainly have a weird take on this. I read it as “Imagine your spouse wants to remain faithful to you in bed, but no longer wants to be emotionally exclusive.” Well, what kind of person are they going to ADD to be emotionally NON exclusive with? I ask. How is that emotional NON exclusiveness any different from being emotionally friendly or loving a child or loving a parent *in addition to* emotionally loving the spouse?
BTW, tons and tons of “exclusive” relationships bust up by 10 years too, and I’d have to argue that relationships more likely to be open with communication (which most relationships who can’t just crib the “social default” are going to have to be) will be more likely to survive on average than those who attempt to squeak by using social assumptions instead of open communications of thoughts and wants and desires. When one partner does not feel free to speak up on ANY topic, the relationship is either going to be really bad or doomed anyway, so I don’t see why you would blame the demise ultimately on the non-monogamy and not squarely on the lack of open communication.
Plus, I don’t even think your gay analogy is even TRUE. I believe most people dying with aids are heterosexual black women.
But honestly, I think ultimately we agree, just not with wording.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Take a look at Craigslist and see just who it is that is requesting a third. Its just as often the woman as the man. The fact that the request is for a woman really isn’t relevant. Also the swingers lifestyle (granted, that wasn’t specifically addressed in this post) is usually initiated by the female as this grants her a much wider sexual variety whereas the men usually are the losers ie less sex (unless he so happens to be an alpha, in which case he gets greater variety too)
But what does the Bible say about it? Well, for starters, sex outside of marriage isn’t approved of. Thats basic and everyone here knows it. Also basic is that biblical marriage is for life (with the exception of adultery which was granted because of “the hardness of ours hearts”) But what isn’t known is what is a Biblical form of marriage. In our culture “everyone knows” that marriage is between one man and one woman, but from the Scriptures we see something different. We see polygamy, specifically polygyny and not polyandry. It is very prevalent throughout the Old Testament and was still practiced at the time of Yeshua (AKA Jesus.) Of course the Romans, those paragons of virtue, had outlawed polygamy but were forced to make an exception for the Jews because they simply couldn’t stop the practice among them and it became futile to try.
Now most Christians are functionally OT illiterate and and will try to point to some things said by Yeshua and the disciples, but the words used do not convey any new command that there should be only one wife (e.g. the word translated as wife and wives is the exact same word) And the only OT command they can point to is to not “multiply your wives”, which one can safely assume was a big sin for Solomon. But for King David, his sin was not taking another woman to wife (he already had several) but taking another man’s wife. The Prophet Nathan, speaking for G-d, stated that had David asked for more wives he would have been given them. So clearly the OT account of our faith condones polygyny. Going to the NT we find Yeshua comparing Himself to a groom about to marry ten virgins (in the parable only 5 were ready.) As there is no account of Yeshua being sinful nor comparing Himself in sinful ways then one can safely deduce that polygyny is still acceptable under the NT.
What has always struck me as odd, is how we took the model of monogamous marriage from those paragons of virtue known as the Romans, and dropped that which was laid out for us in the Scripture itself?
February 9th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Jemand,
I was referring to U.S. aids distribution, but I didn’t say that. Aids in Africa doesn’t count because Africa is predominately christian hetero and aids was sent by god to kill gays. I dunno, maybe he hates blacks too!
We’ll just have to ask Pat Robertson.
++Sarcasm++
February 10th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
I’m terribly sorry that that happened to you
I know you have a lot going on, but have you thought of volunteering at a local school to speak about healthy relationships and boundaries? It might be a cathartic (or pants-shittingly terrifying) experience, and I bet the kids would benefit from it a lot. I know that many teachers are uncomfortable or unprepared to talk about those kinds of things and might really appreciate you sharing whatever parts of your experience you’re comfortable talking about with the students.