Why Monogamy Is Ridiculous

[clusteringflux]

When you are in an existing relationship and having sex with anyone besides the person you are in the relationship with. :bugeye:

I've always made a habit of throwing my conservative prejudices around this place but I think maybe I'm getting worn down finally.
I have a problem with commitment, but not the usual one. That is, every decision I make is supposed to last a lifetime and when it doesn't it's some kind of personal failure..of course that's not a realistic expectation for many many things. It's a pride/perfectionist stance that doesn't make a lot of sense to many people. It's an ever changing life for an ever changing being in an ever changing world.
I remember writing long ago on this forum that I was happily married to the same woman I've been with since I was 15 years old and have been faithful to for 20+ years (which is the honest truth). One poster replied something to the effect of ..."How can you be happy with divorce looming?"
In America it's a damn valid question. Everyone It seems have been divorced at least once and many men don't think twice about an "on the side" fling.
So that makes me wonder, with men (as we are) living in a hyper-sexualized social environment what is a reasonable expectation?
For instance, if a man is faithful 99.9% of the time, always coming home and giving his love and hard earned pay to one woman who meets all of his intellectual, emotional and domestic needs, were to slip and have a one night stand with a stranger I'm inclined to believe that it would still meet the criteria of monogamy, be it a variant of one definition.

Of course, that's not me...6 weeks of guilt and I'd confess, crying like a baby and begging for forgiveness.

 

[scheherazade]

I've always made a habit of throwing my conservative prejudices around this place but I think maybe I'm getting worn down finally.
I have a problem with commitment, but not the usual one. That is, every decision I make is supposed to last a lifetime and when it doesn't it's some kind of personal failure..of course that's not a realistic expectation for many many things. It's a pride/perfectionist stance that doesn't make a lot of sense to many people. It's an ever changing life for an ever changing being in an ever changing world.
I remember writing long ago on this forum that I was happily married to the same woman I've been with since I was 15 years old and have been faithful to for 20+ years (which is the honest truth). One poster replied something to the effect of ..."How can you be happy with divorce looming?"
In America it's a damn valid question. Everyone It seems have been divorced at least once and many men don't think twice about an "on the side" fling.
So that makes me wonder, with men (as we are) living in a hyper-sexualized social environment what is a reasonable expectation?
For instance, if a man is faithful 99.9% of the time, always coming home and giving his love and hard earned pay to one woman who meets all of his intellectual, emotional and domestic needs, were to slip and have a one night stand with a stranger I'm inclined to believe that it would still meet the criteria of monogamy, be it a variant of one definition.

Of course, that's not me...6 weeks of guilt and I'd confess, crying like a baby and begging for forgiveness.

You asked for the definition, and I provided my interpretation.

In the example you provide, I rather expect that most persons would recognize that the intent of monogamy remained, despite the indiscretion.

It IS an ever-changing world, and sometimes people just plain outgrow each other, so I do not necessarily view divorce as a negative thing when it is approached with maturity and reasonable settlement made, without acrimony between the people involved. Unfortunately, that is a tall order and seldom achieved, based on my observations.

Sometimes people may need to experience what 'wrong' feels like in order to appreciate what is right in a relationship.

It is not for me to judge the conduct of another.

Thank you for sharing. By such means do we learn from each other, hopefully to make better decisions in our own lives.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I've always made a habit of throwing my conservative prejudices around this place but I think maybe I'm getting worn down finally.
I have a problem with commitment, but not the usual one. That is, every decision I make is supposed to last a lifetime and when it doesn't it's some kind of personal failure..of course that's not a realistic expectation for many many things. It's a pride/perfectionist stance that doesn't make a lot of sense to many people. It's an ever changing life for an ever changing being in an ever changing world.
I remember writing long ago on this forum that I was happily married to the same woman I've been with since I was 15 years old and have been faithful to for 20+ years (which is the honest truth). One poster replied something to the effect of ..."How can you be happy with divorce looming?"
In America it's a damn valid question. Everyone It seems have been divorced at least once and many men don't think twice about an "on the side" fling.
So that makes me wonder, with men (as we are) living in a hyper-sexualized social environment what is a reasonable expectation?
For instance, if a man is faithful 99.9% of the time, always coming home and giving his love and hard earned pay to one woman who meets all of his intellectual, emotional and domestic needs, were to slip and have a one night stand with a stranger I'm inclined to believe that it would still meet the criteria of monogamy, be it a variant of one definition.

Of course, that's not me...6 weeks of guilt and I'd confess, crying like a baby and begging for forgiveness.

I'm glad you seem to have a good sense of humor. I'm a firm believer in having a separation plan in place before a marriage ever takes place. As the years go by the plan should be reviewed and modified as needed and any changes recorded by the state as legal documents. My thinking here is that by thinking about what a separation will mean to you at a very real and personal level, you might treat the relationship you have with more respect.

 

[Anti-Flag]

So that makes me wonder, with men (as we are) living in a hyper-sexualized social environment what is a reasonable expectation?
For instance, if a man is faithful 99.9% of the time, always coming home and giving his love and hard earned pay to one woman who meets all of his intellectual, emotional and domestic needs, were to slip and have a one night stand with a stranger I'm inclined to believe that it would still meet the criteria of monogamy, be it a variant of one definition.

I think a reasonable expectation is what you signed up for, to be with one person in a commited relationship. If someone chooses to ignore right and wrong and do something anyway I think that says a lot about them - enough to know they aren't relationship material. Of course it's rare to meet people that can do it, so really it's down to individuals what they actually will accept, but I don't think it changes the description, and I would expect faithfulness, especially knowing I give that in return.

As a wise green fellow once said - do, or do not, there is no try.

 

[Telemachus Rex]

So that makes me wonder, with men (as we are) living in a hyper-sexualized social environment what is a reasonable expectation?
For instance, if a man is faithful 99.9% of the time, always coming home and giving his love and hard earned pay to one woman who meets all of his intellectual, emotional and domestic needs, were to slip and have a one night stand with a stranger I'm inclined to believe that it would still meet the criteria of monogamy, be it a variant of one definition.

Would you feel the same way if it were a woman stepping out on her husband? If you were the cuckold?

If men were faithful 99.9% of the time (regardless of age), then an expectation of faithfulness is clearly reasonable, since it's true 99.9% of the time. Assuming each man have an average of one good opportunity to step out on his wife and have this sort of dalliance every month, then even after 40 years 61% of men would have been completely faithful. In fact, it would take 57-58 years of marriage for the percentage to drop below 50%.

That said, if partners did not exact maximum revenge for infidelity, let's face it, infidelity would be common on both sides. The ideal relationship for men and women is one in which (A) your partner adores you so much that he/she has no need for any other, but (B) you, if you wanted to, could freely bump uglies with whomever, whenever. Infidelity hurts so much because it shatters the dream that we are living in world (A).

 

[chimpkin]

your partner adores you so much that he/she has no need for any other,

Need? nah.
Hankering? yeah.

That's why when you find temptation, you move away at a rapid pace. The longest I've exclusively wanted one person was maybe less than a year.

Monogamy is a job. I intend to succeed.

 

[scheherazade]

Need? nah.
Hankering? yeah.

That's why when you find temptation, you move away at a rapid pace. The longest I've exclusively wanted one person was maybe less than a year.

Monogamy is a job. I intend to succeed.

Good on you, chimpkin.

By recognizing your own responsibility to the relationship, and recognizing that it takes a bit of work to maintain your partner's interest, I would suggest that you greatly increase your chances of success.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

False. Perhaps "skirmishes" and below, but actual wars have nothing to do with this (blaming it on some little boy instinct) whatsoever.

Since virtually every woman I know agrees with my statement, i.e., half the population without even bothering to count the legions of men who also agree, I would say that the responsibility falls on you to defend your refutation with evidence or reasoning.

War is just sport taken to a testosterone-crazed extreme. As macho men often say when dismissing chess, go, bridge and Scrabble as polite parlor games for sissies, "Games don't count unless somebody gets hurt." Poker qualifies because in the modern era taking your opponent's money can be construed as greater "harm" than physical injury.

Look at the most despicable wars in recent history with the highest body counts (relative to the participating populations). The conquests of Genghis Khan, the Hundred Years War of the so-called "Reformation," the obliteration of the Aztec and Inca empires, the American Civil War, the near-annihilation of the North Americans, the two World Wars, the Congo Civil War, the ongoing mayhem in Burma and northeastern Africa. How many women were in leadership positions, even statistically adjusted for the second-class status to which the nasty little boys of the era confined their mommas? How many women even spoke out from their parlor prisons in favor of those playground scuffles?

Middle age is the highest one goes in age, it is the peak.

Huh? Speaking as one of the elders in my profession, my circle of acquaintances, my band, my family, and even the SciForums community, I beg to differ.

 

[clusteringflux]

War is just sport taken to a testosterone-crazed extreme. As macho men often say when dismissing chess, go, bridge and Scrabble as polite parlor games for sissies, "Games don't count unless somebody gets hurt." Poker qualifies because in the modern era taking your opponent's money can be construed as greater "harm" than physical injury.

Despite a departure from the topic, I'd like to comment on this one..I think this is true on some level but really only applies to a minority of the the the men involved in war. Perhaps the power brokers and politicians for instance who have already have this type of personality structure are driven in this manner.
However, to mobilize an entire army it takes a genuine fear that your family and way of life is at stake..so rather than the image of women sitting the sidelines saying "boys will be boys", it's more accurate to say that mothers and wives drive war once they feel threatened as if to say "you're the men. now go and protect us".

 

[nietzschefan]

Since virtually every woman I know agrees with my statement, i.e., half the population without even bothering to count the legions of men who also agree, I would say that the responsibility falls on you to defend your refutation with evidence or reasoning.

Of course you would say that, the double standard of this site shines again. Certain people do not have defend their statements that are pulled out of opinion while certain others - ALWAYS do.

So my position is easily defended - there have been few Women in history given the reins of power, but they are bloody marvelous at war...

No particular order:
Elizabeth I
Queen of England, 1533-1603

Amina
Nigerian Queen, 1560-1610

Mbande Nzinga
Angolan Queen, 1582-1663

Catherine the Great
Empress of Russia. 1729-1796

Victoria
Queen of England, 1819-1901

Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel, 1898-1978

Margaret Thatcher
Prime Minister of England, b. 1925

Boudica Queen of the Icini

Honorable mention (perhaps not leaders of nations or semi -mythical):

Queen Tomyris of the Massagetae Battle (530 B.C.)

Joan du Arc

Jhansi Ki Rani (Queen of Jhansi, India, 1850s)

Arachidamia - 3rd Century, B.C.E.

Zabibi and Samsi - 700s B.C.E

Aethelflaed - late 9th-early 10th century

The Kahina - Mahgreb c. 702 C.E.

Many more...


To avoid unnecessary argument I have omitted countless wives of kings (whom truly ruled), concubines who manipulated to wars and others who rules jointly. Yes there are many other women who ruled peacefully, but many men also ruled peacefully. Men and women are both governed by the laws of nature with ruler-ship of the state and the one that commands an army does not need to be personally, physically, strong.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

However, to mobilize an entire army it takes a genuine fear that your family and way of life is at stake..so rather than the image of women sitting the sidelines saying "boys will be boys", it's more accurate to say that mothers and wives drive war once they feel threatened as if to say "you're the men. now go and protect us".

Sure, but the only reason they have to say that is that the macho men on the other side are acting like little boys.

Little boys can do a lot of damage, no one disputes that.

Of course you would say that, the double standard of this site shines again.

It's not the website's standard, just my own interpretation of it in this instance. I apologize if it was poorly invoked.

 

[clusteringflux]

Sure, but the only reason they have to say that is that the macho men on the other side are acting like little boys.

Little boys can do a lot of damage, no one disputes that..

False. It only takes a look at a difference in culture for for people to feel threatened enough to wage war. A perfect example is militant Islam and the western reaction to it. It's easy for westerners to rally around the notion of war because of the way their (M.Islam) treatment of women is received in the west. For the same reason, it's difficult for them to assemble a cohesive fighting force because they don't have full support from a substantial percent of their populous..that being many of the women.

 

[billvon]

For the same reason, it's difficult for them to assemble a cohesive fighting force because they don't have full support from a substantial percent of their populous..that being many of the women.

We had no problems assembling a fighting force back when we denied women the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to divorce etc.

 

[billvon]

The ideal relationship for men and women is one in which (A) your partner adores you so much that he/she has no need for any other, but (B) you, if you wanted to, could freely bump uglies with whomever, whenever. Infidelity hurts so much because it shatters the dream that we are living in world (A).

That's definitely not my ideal relationship! I looked for (and found) someone whose life was complete without me, including relationships with other people, work that they are good at and enjoy, and a dozen other things that make someone a complete person. Both of us had still had desires of other people that ranged from friendship to more than that; what changed is that now we both have someone who always comes first.

 

[nietzschefan]

It's not the website's standard, just my own interpretation of it in this instance. I apologize if it was poorly invoked.

Ok sure, I suppose I don't really care. I see you are qualifying women who make war as "Defenders" than again that is possibly true in some instances (as it is with men.) Your original statement is simply so erroneous though I could not let it slide - particularly coming from you (usually every word you type can be taken as scientific gospel). I'd really rather you fully qualify it.

War is almost never a couple of little boys having a tantrum. Even Kim Jong ILL, our modern emo-kid leader, plays politics to get what he wants.

Women can be very very gruesome in war also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris

Tomyris sent a message to Cyrus denouncing his treachery, and with all her forces, challenged him to a second battle. In the fight that ensued, the Massagetae got the upper hand, and the Persians were defeated with high casualties. Cyrus was killed and Tomyris had his corpse beheaded and then crucified,[5] and shoved his head into a wineskin filled with human blood. She was reportedly quoted as saying, "I warned you that I would quench your thirst for blood, and so I shall"

It is said she slaughtered all 200000 Persians, even after some surrendered. She decimated them completely.

 

[clusteringflux]

We had no problems assembling a fighting force back when we denied women the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to divorce etc.

Who's "we"?

And your example is relative to the perceived threat. In other words, the enemy only has to represent something worse than their present condition. If it's not, it can be made to look so easily with propaganda, lies etc. though not as easily done today as before the tech boom.

And in general it was more difficult to assemble armies, to the extent that it was required by law through drafts. Much of today's fighting is done with voluntary forces

The fact is once mothers and wives decide that sons and husbands are dying for no good reason it becomes very very difficult. Look at the attitudes of USamericans regarding war now as opposed to just after 9-11, for instance. When people didn't know the demographics and were led to believe every muslim on earth was a savage it was quite easy to support destroying entire regions with air strikes. To accept that many are not completely savage is often followed by accepting an end to conventional war tactics.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

False. It only takes a look at a difference in culture for for people to feel threatened enough to wage war. A perfect example is militant Islam and the western reaction to it. It's easy for westerners to rally around the notion of war because of the way their (M.Islam) treatment of women is received in the west.

There's arguably no group of men more macho than the swaggering, misogynistic throwbacks who inhabit the backwoods regions of fundamentalist Islam. If ever there was a postcard-perfect model of men acting like little boys, that's it. Of course post-Stone Age people react to them with alarm. Civilization is a constant struggle to keep our inner caveman from taking control of us, and these assholes welcome their inner caveman and promise him glory and virgins.

That's the mechanism by which machismo propagates itself. One group starts shooting, and the other group can't find any way to defend themselves except to shoot back. The next thing you, know, everyone is transported back to the Stone Age.

And I don't buy today's party line about Islam being any different or worse than the other equally despicable Abrahamic religions. Their communities of believers all erupt into orgies of genocidal violence every few generations. The Christians tried very hard to exterminate the European Jews during my lifetime. There's something about monotheism that turns its believers into homicidal monsters, as regular as clockwork.

For the same reason, it's difficult for them to assemble a cohesive fighting force because they don't have full support from a substantial percent of their populous..that being many of the women.

A report in the Washington Post a few months ago said that when young men leave the terrorist movement, move back home, and reintegrate into their civilized lives, it's usually because their mothers get pissed off and tell them to come home.