Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Monagamy A Myth?
7even:
--- Quote from: Eleven 2 Three on June 26, 2008, 04:49:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on June 26, 2008, 04:02:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: Eleven 2 Three on June 26, 2008, 03:24:19 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on June 26, 2008, 03:10:35 PM ---I wouldn't call my partner a girlfriend in a free relationship. It would just be the person I fuck most or something. "Main bitch". Not girlfriend, let alone wife. And no, to the other part of your statement. But you can have your own opinion.
--- End quote ---
Well, there's people who (say they) really love each other and who are really into each other, but they don't attach so much value to monogamy - they don't mind their partner getting some joy with someone else. What do you think all those clubs for couples are for? They can be happily married, yet getting their fuck on like they're from fraternities and sororities.
I don't mind people doing whatever they think is right. That doesn't mean that I approve of any promiscuosity - not at all. People are free to fuck around, if that's what they think is right, but that doesn't mean I won't despise them for behaving in a way of which I strongly disapprove. Whatever flows your boat though...
--- End quote ---
1. This is something I can't quite relate to, cause I'm not like that at all, but if it's not cheating and shit, and really as chilled out and mutual as you describe it there, then I don't have a problem with it. Maybe I should have been more explicit in my initial statement.
2. This is something we can never agree on, because I'm not down with that anarchist type of mentality at all. Do I mind people doing whatever the fuck they want? If it's something fucked up, you can bet your ass I do.
--- End quote ---
Then who's to decide if something's fucked up? I say people can only do it for themselves. Who else is to set the standards, and what if the standards seem unnatural to you? Wouldn't you follow your own path, without taking other peoples hurt feelings into consideration?
--- End quote ---
Only the next man goes to hell, and I damn sure don't bemoan the loss of that immoral ass nigga. But even besides that, I doubt that a healthy person would find everything that I would call "fucked up" right even if he or she does it. Some people don't go for the right thing, but for the fun thing.
Narrator:
--- Quote from: Turf Hitta on June 26, 2008, 01:48:49 PM ---And if anyone would care to elaborate, I would be very interested to hear why staying single for sexual purposes is "shallow."
--- End quote ---
It's shallow because, frankly, there IS more to life, and to being with women, than just sex. If that's your attitude, then it's basically like saying sex is the only thing you think women are good for. That, I hope you would agree, really is a totally adolescent, and even misogynist, mentality. And people who do live like that don't always wind up being happy in the long run.
Personally, I disagree with Mitt Romney's claim that "you don't need sex; you just think you do", because obviously that's not true, either. I actually WOULD go so far as to say that if you're married to a woman who you can't get hard for, and your marriage is suffering for it, you do actually need to think long and hard about whether her personality makes up for her lack of, uh, "sexually stimulating" characteristics (some columnist's words, not mine). Whether that leads to separation and/or divorce is another matter.
So, to sum it up, my attitude is, Yes, you do need sex to be happy, but at the same time, there's more to life than sex. Being stuck with a woman you don't like and don't find attractive, for the "moral superiority" of being monogamous = bullshit. Staying single just so that you can fuck a random stranger every night = also bullshit. Find the balance, and find what suits you.
Turf Hitta:
--- Quote from: No More Aliases on June 27, 2008, 04:44:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: Turf Hitta on June 26, 2008, 01:48:49 PM ---And if anyone would care to elaborate, I would be very interested to hear why staying single for sexual purposes is "shallow."
--- End quote ---
It's shallow because, frankly, there IS more to life, and to being with women, than just sex. If that's your attitude, then it's basically like saying sex is the only thing you think women are good for. That, I hope you would agree, really is a totally adolescent, and even misogynist, mentality. And people who do live like that don't always wind up being happy in the long run.
--- End quote ---
Well first of all, you're simply assuming someone who doesn't want to be with only one person thinks all there is to life is sex. That is seriously flawed logic and it also doesn't mean you think all a woman is good for is sex. Where are you getting these assumptions? To me, making these types of sweeping generalizations about a huge group of people is shallow. And regarding people being happy, people who are in committed relationships often end up miserable. What is your point? People whose foundation of happiness is based squarely on their sexual habits/relationships are probably not going to be happy no matter what.
Anyone else care to explain the logic behind saying anything but monogamous committed relationships are shallow?
Narrator:
--- Quote from: Turf Hitta on June 28, 2008, 03:36:56 PM ---Well first of all, you're simply assuming someone who doesn't want to be with only one person thinks all there is to life is sex. That is seriously flawed logic and it also doesn't mean you think all a woman is good for is sex. Where are you getting these assumptions? To me, making these types of sweeping generalizations about a huge group of people is shallow.
--- End quote ---
I don't see how it doesn't follow. I mean, that person clearly values sex more than just about anything else they could or would get out of a relationship.
--- Quote from: Turf Hitta on June 28, 2008, 03:36:56 PM ---And regarding people being happy, people who are in committed relationships often end up miserable. What is your point? People whose foundation of happiness is based squarely on their sexual habits/relationships are probably not going to be happy no matter what.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that is my point exactly. Though I have also tried to demonstrate a more nuanced view by explaining that I understand how sex can make or break a relationship.
--- Quote from: Turf Hitta on June 28, 2008, 03:36:56 PM ---Anyone else care to explain the logic behind saying anything but monogamous committed relationships are shallow?
--- End quote ---
I dunno about any of these other people, but I sure as hell never said that. Personally, I'm not interested in a committed relationship right now (though my reason has nothing to do with wanting to fuck a lot of women).
Turf Hitta:
--- Quote from: No More Aliases on June 29, 2008, 07:36:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Turf Hitta on June 28, 2008, 03:36:56 PM ---Well first of all, you're simply assuming someone who doesn't want to be with only one person thinks all there is to life is sex. That is seriously flawed logic and it also doesn't mean you think all a woman is good for is sex. Where are you getting these assumptions? To me, making these types of sweeping generalizations about a huge group of people is shallow.
--- End quote ---
I don't see how it doesn't follow. I mean, that person clearly values sex more than just about anything else they could or would get out of a relationship.
--- End quote ---
And maybe nothing that comes from a relationship would appeal to the person in question. Relationships are not for everybody. Just because somebody is not interested in a relationship does not mean they are shallow. I don't follow your logic.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version