DescentBB

Kilarin wrote:The pheromone arguments are not without merit, but are certainly still very controversial. However, I would still say they have little bearing on the topic. When a female cat is in season, the toms show up for a party. Of COURSE their little minds don't understand exactly how reproduction works, but they know when its the right time to have sex. Humans think ANY time is the right time to have sex. If we are unconsciously aware of when women are fertile, it seems to have very little influence on our behavior or fertility. And thats because we use sex for bonding, not just for reproduction.

I think that humans only think that any time is the right time for sex is because the stimuli that suggest readiness to mate are commonplace. And we humans learn to exploit these stimuli for our own purposes. For instance, women try to dress 'sexy' (men as well), they put on perfume that has just the right pheromones to make one attractive, and they learn to pose and dress just in the right way that their curves are highlighted.

So, no, i don't think sex is for bonding, although that is one of its purposes. Its also for recreation, power, repropuction, solace, and so on... whatever use humans give it.

Yes and no. You will note that I listed it as an influence. However, there is a gigantic difference between pleasing yourself, and learning how to please another. While autoerotic activity probably has some influence on what kinds of stimulation we enjoy, it simply can't compare to the powerful experience of sharing sex with another human being. That's a very different skill. And you will note that many of the types of stimulation people enjoy in a physical relationship with another human are (almost?)impossible to perform alone.
So, influence? yes. But not at anywhere near the same level as actual sexual experience with another human being.

Sure, real sex is better than masturbation (there actually was a study on this recently), but I think the stimulus that makes sex the most powerful learning mechanism is, or course, the orgasm. And you also have these with masturbation. So, certain magazines and movies prime your sexual preferences A LOT and predefine for which qualitites you look in your future spouse. I agree, though, that having sex with this one person finetunes your preference in the following years.

Pandora wrote:I think that humans only think that any time is the right time for sex is because the stimuli that suggest readiness to mate are commonplace.

I'm not certain we are actually disagreeing on this point.

Pandora wrote:So, certain magazines and movies prime your sexual preferences A LOT and predefine for which qualitites you look in your future spouse.

Hmmm, I wasn't actually taking pornography into account. I'll have to concede that extensive use of pornography would probably have a measurable effect on all the various areas of sexual taste.

I'm working on that post in the unlikely event any one is wondering. I may or not have a chance to finish tonight.

Kilarin wrote:My point was that humans do not live up to their ideals in any respect. Every society has child abuse, even though some officially sanction it and others don't. When attempting to identify a "Monogamous" culture, we have to settle for one that promotes monogamy as an ideal.

You either have to provide evidence that the Greek and Roman cultures actually did promote sexual monogamy as an ideal (which as far as I know might exist), or set out how a culture that only legally recognizes one marriage per person means that they promote sexual monogamy as an ideal. With your falling-short argument, you're again blurring the lines between marital monogamy and sexual monogamy. Like I've said before, a culture that only promotes one marriage per person might simultaneously encourage premarital sex. Promoting premarital sex is not falling short of the marital monogamy ideal, since there is no necessary reason to think that one cannot both consider marital monogamy an ideal and encourage premarital sex. The only reason they would seem exclusive is if you walk into this with Judeo-Christian-like values already existing.

I think another problem with your original post is that it doesn't seem to be the best solution for all people, unless you're not recommending it to all people. How is following your schema going to better the sex life of those who never get married (or whatever method you want to use to choose your monogamous partner)? What if a person marries someone who is truly sexually incompatible with him/her (unless you maintain that this is always impossible)?

The thing I dont' understand about monogamy is how do you know if the shoe will fit if you don't try it on first? Wouldn't you at least like to know?

Zuruck wrote:The thing I dont' understand about monogamy is how do you know if the shoe will fit if you don't try it on first? Wouldn't you at least like to know?

marrage and monogamy is about choice. there is no perfect relationship, it is what you make of it. if you think your going to find your Cinderella or your Prince Charming and live happily ever after without ever having a problem then you are dillusional. if you want to have a suscessful relationship then be prepared to work at it. EVERY DAY. it will be 25 years for me this December 19th

Zuruck wrote:how do you know if the shoe will fit if you don't try it on first?

Another person's sexuality isn't like a "shoe" to your "foot". Shoes and feet need to be the same size and shape to fit together, and if it doesn't fit today it won't fit tomorrow either. But, neither your sexuality nor theirs is a fixed, unchanging thing -- they change over time.

Sexual fit is not about matching up your pre-shaped sexuality with someone else's pre-shaped sexuality. It's about growing together. Compatibility is developed, not inherent.

Incompatibility might, perhaps, exist if two people begin so far apart in their sexuality that they can find no starting point from which to grow together (if you're that far apart, you'll know just from talking -- no "test drive" needed.) If the pair of you have any common starting point whatsoever, reasonably healthy attitudes, and are committed to each other, sexual compatibility will develop.

Zuruck wrote:The thing I dont' understand about monogamy is how do you know if the shoe will fit if you don't try it on first? Wouldn't you at least like to know?

Well, if your sexual tastes are defined by experience, then the very act of monogamy causes the shoe to fit. And having trouble finding shoes that fit is a consequence of promiscuousness.

I didn't really understand this before I saw it in action. Before I was married -- before I even dated Lothar -- I had crushes on a wide variety of guys at school, and had a long and often self-contradictory list of what it was that made a guy attractive to me. And yet after only a year or so of marriage, my tastes had narrowed so much that Lothar had become the very definition of what I found attractive. And it keeps accelerating after that. I seem to find him better looking with each passing year.

In fact, given my experience, it boggles my mind how promiscuous folks manage to have good sex at all. I strongly suspect they don't, or maybe don't know what good sex is like. I can imagine being attracted to a series of strangers or long-time friends, but I just can't fathom building up the sort of vigorous dynamo of mutual affection and attraction that you need to power genuinely excellent sex. That takes fidelity. That takes years.

I can't come up with a really good analogy, but here's a workable one: it's like descent controllers. It takes a long time to become a really excellent descent player -- years. And it takes a long time for even a really excellent player to adjust to a change in controllers. The reason is that you need to adapt and learn your controller, and it in turn affects how you play your game. When I switched from keyboard to mouse, it took me weeks to be able to react quickly to things, and it was at least a good month or so before I was back at the top of my game.

In addition to the awkwardness caused by unfamiliar controls, I had to 'think' differently -- the limitations of keyboard affected the way I thought about dogfights, and so did the limitations of the mouse, and in incompatible ways. In fact, for a while I tried a dual config, in which I could switch from keyboard to mouse in a fight. I thought the changeup would be a good trick I could pull out, but it only served to make me mediocre with both controls. I couldn't form a consistent mental picture of how to best move my ship.

It's not hard to see why this is so: your choice of controls fundamentally affects how you can play your game, but the game is much more than a choice of controllers. You need to master a chosen control so that you can go on to play the greater game.

Sex is like that. Your choice of partners matters, and fundamentally colors everything you do together, but frequently changing partners looking for the perfect one is like frequently changing Descent controls, looking for the perfect one. Of course some controls are better than others, but there's only a tiny advantage to be had even if you could find the elusive 'perfect' one. And it carries the huge disadvantage of constantly confusing your instincts and stunting the development of your larger game.

The analogy is flawed because it only takes a little while to learn a control, and you can eventually adapt to a new one. A sexual partner takes a lifetime to learn, and (by all accounts) also a lifetime to forget. Even minor sexual experiences - things like viewing porn or indulging in fantasies - create sexual appetites that stay with you for a long time--and the more you develop, the harder it is to find someone else who has the same ones. Unless you develop them jointly, of course.

And of course, sex is much, much more than the sum of partner and technique. It's passion and art and language. Promiscuity sacrifices competence at the greater game for petty gains in controller selection.

The result of acquired sexual appetites is that the more sexual experience you have, the more defined and developed your tastes are. If that experience is promiscuous, you have many specific and competing appetites, and can't ever be fully satisfied by any one real person. If that experience is monogamous, your taste is narrow and focused and exactly, perfectly satisfied by a real person you regularly have sex with.

The irony of the whole thing is that the very act of searching for the perfect shoe keeps you from ever finding it.

Cuda wrote:if you want to have a suscessful relationship then be prepared to work at it. EVERY DAY. it will be 25 years for me this December 19th

Congratulations! You are five years ahead of my wife and I.

Excellent and BEAUTIFUL posts Lothar and Drakona. Thank you.

Jeff250 wrote:Promoting premarital sex is not falling short of the marital monogamy ideal, since there is no necessary reason to think that one cannot both consider marital monogamy an ideal and encourage premarital sex. The only reason they would seem exclusive is if you walk into this with Judeo-Christian-like values already existing.

Hmmm. Guilty as charged here. I hear Monogamy and I think "one partner", but its definitely true that there have been societies that officially allowed premarital sex but insisted upon monogamy after marriage.

Jeff250 wrote:You either have to provide evidence that the Greek and Roman cultures actually did promote sexual monogamy as an ideal (which as far as I know might exist), or set out how a culture that only legally recognizes one marriage per person means that they promote sexual monogamy as an ideal.

A brief attempt at researching the topic didn't really turn up much more than I already knew. Which is hardly an authoritative answer. Greek and Roman societies held up Monogamy within marriage as an ideal. Otherwise Hera would have had no reason to get angry at Zeus for all his affairs. As far as premarital sex goes, they certainly insisted upon virginity in their women (Most societies did). I can't find any explicit references to what was the "ideal" for men. Since both Greek and Roman societies failed rather spectacularly at Monogamy within marriage, while still using it as their goal, I'm not convinced that the equally spectacular failures before marriage tell us anything one way or another.

Not that I see this as a critical point in any case. I freely admit that no society, as a society, has ever lived up to the ideal of true Monogamy, of one sexual partner for life until death do you part. The majority of societies haven't even attempted it as an ideal. I find this consistent with the fact that it also seems that the majority of people in all places and at all times have been rather frustrated with sex and relationships.

Studies still support the extremely practical idea that people who have sex with a single partner for life are generally happier with their sex lives.

Could you cite such a study? I remember reading a similar study a while back, and it studied only married couples' sex vs. others' sex, not taking other factors like whether or not the married couples had premarital sex into consideration. The conclusions were also made entirely by asking the partners what they thought of their sex lives, since it seems to be the only conceivable way of going about the question, but it does contribute the possible lurking variable that being married could affect couples' opinions of their sex lives in themselves.

David Blanchflower of Dartmouth College and Andrew Oswald of Warwick University found that people who paid for sex or had sex outside of marriage reported \"notably less happiness scores\".
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9679C8B63

Sex in America survey, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, released in Oct. 1994:
* 4 out of 5 married persons are faithful, ie. have never cheated on their partner.
* Married persons had more sex and said they enjoyed it more than singles.
* 9 out of 10 of the married said their sex lives were \"very\" satisfying. About the same said their sexual relationship was emotionally satisfying.
* Those people with more than one partner in the last year expressed the lowest rates of satisfaction.
* The study concluded that the vast majority of adults were either abstinent or monogamous (8 out of 10) and satisfied with their situations.
http://www.tparents.org/UNews/unws9412/sex.htm


The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially
By Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher.
...married men, rather than trading their libidos for lawn mowers, have more sex than single men
Breakups are more likely with live-in couples than with married ones, and cohabitors, Waite and Gallagher write, are generally less happy and less satisfied with their sex lives than the wed.
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/index.shtml
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/ ... 000_4.html

National Sex Survey led by Chicago professors Edward Laumann and Robert Michael and another large sex study by University of Denver psychologists showed that married people have more sex than single people do, and they enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally.
From an article by one of the authors of the above:
in terms of the sexual aspect of their lives, those with a monogamous long-term partner report being relatively satisfied with their lover and with their sex lives, compared to other adults


Lots of links here of unconfirmed reliability.

Is sologamy a word? If so, would you all please never use it to describe my current status?

Thank you.

And how would you describe a (non-cheating) monk or priest? Nullogamy? Godogamy?

Genghis wrote:Is sologamy a word?

Ha! Just remember never to cheat on yourself. Because you'll always get caught.

Genghis wrote:And how would you describe a (non-cheating) monk or priest? Nullogamy? Godogamy?

The term is Abstinent, or Celibate. But I got to admit, I LIKE nullogamy. (as a WORD)

Genghis wrote:Is sologamy a word? If so, would you all please never use it to describe my current status?

Thank you.

Your right hand cannot cheat on your left hand. So, stop worrying.

(still working on my post, btw - just been busy with RL)

Kilarin, your studies indicate that long-term sexual relationships (and marital ones) are better than those of shorter, but your claim in this thread goes much further to say that not only should we seek out long-term sexual relationships or marriage but that we should strive to only have absolutely one per lifetime. I think that to effectively demonstrate this, you would need a study concluding something to the effect of that most married couples who had premarital sex in past relationships regret having had it (for non-religious reasons).

Jeff250 wrote:our claim in this thread goes much further to say that not only should we seek out long-term sexual relationships or marriage but that we should strive to only have absolutely one per lifetime.

Hmmm. The studies show that long term Monogamous relationships are the most sucesfull and satisfying. And that the more partners one has, the less satisfied one is.
I think this can be logically extended to the idea that a single lifetime partner is the optimal solution. BUT, I'm going to have to conceed that none of the studies, to my knowledge, looked at that question as directly as I stated it.

And just to clarify, I DO believe there are legitimate reasons to break up a marriage. And I am in no way opposed to remarriage after a legitimate divorce or after the death of your partner. I think one partner is ideal, but we can't always have ideal.

Once you acknowledge a couple of legitimate reasons to break a marriage or to find a new sexual partner, you open the door to having to consider a host of others.

Ideals often conflict and vary in personal priority. I can grant you that ideally everyone should find one great sexual partner and get married. But I could also make a similar argument that ideally everyone should find one perfect job and work for it the rest of their lives. However, in the latter example, another ideal, like making a living until one finds that perfect job, might trump it.

I feel embarassed saying this but here goes. Does a boy really want to marry a virgin or someone worldly?
Suppose he is worldly but the girl is a virgin and he won't know what she is like until the wedding night.

When I get married I want it to be permanent but I don't want to be tested first. There is a reason I'm asking this so please no funny stuff.

Bee

Jeff250 wrote:Once you acknowledge a couple of legitimate reasons to break a marriage or to find a new sexual partner, you open the door to having to consider a host of others.

There is a big difference in saying that you have a right to get out of a marriage when the other partner has broken the contract by, say, having an affair or beating you up, and saying that you should abandon your marriage the first time you get bored.

And the wedding vows (standard westernized format) clearly state, "Till death do us part". Having your partner not DIE is obviously the ideal. When it happens, it is a great tragedy. But the survivor must move on with life, and that moving on may involve finding a new partner and starting over again.

I think that having had previous partners is a handicap to a new relationship, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make things work from there. Work through the handicap and make THIS relationship the best you possibly can. (which means lifetime and Monogamous)

Bettina wrote:Does a boy really want to marry a virgin or someone worldly?

For one thing this IS something you should talk about with someone you are going to marry. And if they tell you they want someone with more experience, feel absolutely free to tell them to look elsewhere.

Bettina wrote:Suppose he is worldly but the girl is a virgin and he won't know what she is like until the wedding night.

My standards for marriage are rather rigid. If you are going to marry someone, they should be someone who loves you SO much, that they would STILL want to marry you even if you were a quadriplegic and pretty much incapable of any kind of sex at all. What if he was a big breast man and you got cancer and had to have a mastectomy? Do you think he would drop you for a woman with a complete set of mammaries? And, inevitably, people age. Gravity always wins in the end. 40 years from now you will have wrinkles and will sag, will he still love you or look for a younger woman?

Sex is good, sex is VERY good, and sex can really help a couple bond. But if the man you are about to marry says that if you couldn't participate in sex anymore, or didn't look perfect anymore, he would either divorce you or look for sex elsewhere, then you should find a better man to marry, one who loves you more than sex. One who would love you enough to stay faithful to you even if you couldn't have sex.

How does this apply to your question? It means finding out "what you are like" on the wedding night should not be a deciding factor in the marriage. If he loves you, he will want to learn how to make love to YOU, how to please the special individual you are, with all your little quirks and unique variations that make you YOU. Discovering the exact details of what pleases you should be one of his highest goals. The idea that he would come to the wedding night and suddenly discover that you don't look exactly like he wanted, or don't move exactly like he wanted, or don't measure up to whatever preconceived idea he has, shouldn't even cross his mind. YOU will be what he wants.

Bettina wrote:When I get married I want it to be permanent but I don't want to be tested first.

And there is no reason you should BE tested. If your fiance isn't willing to wait until the wedding night, find someone better. You deserve the joy of a monogamous relationship. You deserve someone who will swear themselves to you, and you only. Why lose that special advantage of being a virgin on your wedding night? You can have better, you DESERVE better, why not wait and GET the better instead of settling for less?

Bet51987 wrote:I feel embarassed saying this but here goes. Does a boy really want to marry a virgin or someone worldly?
Suppose he is worldly but the girl is a virgin and he won't know what she is like until the wedding night.

Just because one is sexually experienced does not automatically make them a good marriage partner.

There is a big difference in saying that you have a right to get out of a marriage when the other partner has broken the contract by, say, having an affair or beating you up, and saying that you should abandon your marriage the first time you get bored.

I never said that one should abandon a marriage if they are bored, but you can't not consider it. Your argument appeals to the consequences of marriage and sexual monogamy for the reason to do them, not some religious inclination to uphold a marriage simply because it's the right thing to do or because God commands it. On the contrary, your argument appeals to the increased sexual gratification and other interests to one's own well-being for the reason to seek marriage and sexual monogamy. It's conceivable that two people could better their sex lives and their lives in general by divorcing or remarrying simply because they are direly bored of each other. Why not?

Kilarin wrote:David Blanchflower of Dartmouth College and Andrew Oswald of Warwick University found that people who paid for sex or had sex outside of marriage reported "notably less happiness scores".
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9679C8B63

Sex in America survey, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, released in Oct. 1994:
* 4 out of 5 married persons are faithful, ie. have never cheated on their partner.
* Married persons had more sex and said they enjoyed it more than singles.
* 9 out of 10 of the married said their sex lives were "very" satisfying. About the same said their sexual relationship was emotionally satisfying.
* Those people with more than one partner in the last year expressed the lowest rates of satisfaction.
* The study concluded that the vast majority of adults were either abstinent or monogamous (8 out of 10) and satisfied with their situations.
http://www.tparents.org/UNews/unws9412/sex.htm


The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially
By Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher.
...married men, rather than trading their libidos for lawn mowers, have more sex than single men
Breakups are more likely with live-in couples than with married ones, and cohabitors, Waite and Gallagher write, are generally less happy and less satisfied with their sex lives than the wed.
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/index.shtml
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/ ... 000_4.html

National Sex Survey led by Chicago professors Edward Laumann and Robert Michael and another large sex study by University of Denver psychologists showed that married people have more sex than single people do, and they enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally.
From an article by one of the authors of the above:
in terms of the sexual aspect of their lives, those with a monogamous long-term partner report being relatively satisfied with their lover and with their sex lives, compared to other adults


Lots of links here of unconfirmed reliability.

I'm curious to know how many of these unmarried people who are "less happy" with their sex lives aren't gettin' any. It seems to me that with most people who aren't in a long-term relationship, any sex is good sex. That's not to say that all single people go out trying to get laid every night, but I really can't imagine anyone saying, "I got booty last night for the first time in 3 months, but gosh darn it, it just didn't do it for me."

MP

MP: Sex feels great, so of course, from that perspective, they are going to enjoy it. But sex is more than just a physical act, it is a touching of hearts as well as bodies. In this case, the heart part is virtually ignored as the partners are mainly out for their own pleasure, with little real concern or care for the other participant. When the heart side is given as much attention as the physical, the overall experience is better. In most cases with unmarrieds, the heart side is not given the effort it deserves as the dedication to the partner is not present to the degree of that with stable monogamous partners.

Bee: Quite a few of the young guys my age when I first started work had the following attitude. Chase all the girls you like, but when you want to settle down, find a \"good\" church girl, because who wants a used one? I believe that virginity is much more than just physical, that it includes mind and soul and spirit. I believe that virginity has a beautiful innocence that also can be only lost once. As encouraged above, make sure that the guy you finally give it to is truly worthy of this precious gift of \"yourself.\"

Jeff250 wrote:It's conceivable that two people could better their sex lives and their lives in general by divorcing or remarrying simply because they are direly bored of each other. Why not?

Its like learning to ride a horse, you always get back in the saddle after a fall.

Inevitably you WILL get bored at some point or other in a relationship. If you walk out when you are bored, you will never learn how to make ANY relationship work. To obtain the advantages of Monogamy you must learn to stick through the thin parts of a relationship so you can get to the thick ones.

Weyrman wrote:When the heart side is given as much attention as the physical, the overall experience is better.

Indeed!

Weyrman wrote:Quite a few of the young guys my age when I first started work had the following attitude. Chase all the girls you like, but when you want to settle down, find a "good" church girl, because who wants a used one?

This is very true, but I must admit that if *I* were a girl, well, for one thing, I'd be a LOT better looking, BUT, I wouldn't see why I should settle for the double standard. Its not just that SHE is now starting off with used goods, but the kind of guy who feels that this is a "fair" arrangement is the same kind of guy who is likely to think that only the WIFE needs to stay monogamous after marriage.

Kilarin wrote:Its like learning to ride a horse, you always get back in the saddle after a fall. Smile

Inevitably you WILL get bored at some point or other in a relationship. If you walk out when you are bored, you will never learn how to make ANY relationship work. To obtain the advantages of Monogamy you must learn to stick through the thin parts of a relationship so you can get to the thick ones.

The same could be said for adultery, battery, etc., but you have for some reason put these in a seperate category than dire boredom, terrible accident, etc. You've already opened the flood gates, and now you're forced to consider any reason, including dire boredom, for the reason to terminate a relationship, because even it can, in many situations, produce a better sexual and general well-being for the individuals involved.

Jeff250 wrote:The same could be said for adultery, battery, etc., but you have for some reason put these in a seperate category than dire boredom, terrible accident, etc. You've already opened the flood gates, and now you're forced to consider any reason, including dire boredom, for the reason to terminate a relationship

It's best not to run away from home. But if your mother is trying to kill you, or your father is sexually abusing you, then running away MIGHT be the best option. By admitting this possibility, I don't think I'm opening the floodgates for kids to run away every time they get mad at their parents.

Under certain extreme conditions I admit that you MIGHT be better off abandoning a relationship. "I'm Bored", is a LONG way below that threshold.

Running away from a boring relationship won't solve anything, it will just lead you into another relationship where you will, again, get bored. ALL relationships run in cycles and if you can't learn to liven up one relationship when it starts getting boring, you won't be able to liven up the next when IT, inevitably, hits a boring spell. Abandoning the relationship does NOTHING to fix the problem here, the only way to fix the problem is to stay in the relationship and learn how to make it work.

You can't possibly know what will be best for all relationships or for all people, and yet you pretend as if you can.

edit: You're getting too hung up on the boredom. Let's say Joe married Susie three days ago, but now Susie has suffered quadriplegic injuries. Why should Joe remain in the marriage when he can marry the cute office secretary that has been flirting with him for two years and engage in a monogamous relationship with her instead? Surely investing in the latter example would be not only better for Joe's sexual interests but also for his general well-being. Suppose that Joe also doesn't have to deal with the guilt associated with presuming Judeo-Christian values.

Jeff250 wrote:You can't possibly know what will be best for all relationships or for all people, and yet you pretend as if you can.

edit: You're getting too hung up on the boredom. Let's say Joe married Susie three days ago, but now Susie has suffered quadriplegic injuries. Why should Joe remain in the marriage when he can marry the cute office secretary that has been flirting with him for two years and engage in a monogamous relationship with her instead? Surely investing in the latter example would be not only better for Joe's sexual interests but also for his general well-being. Suppose that Joe also doesn't have to deal with the guilt associated with presuming Judeo-Christian values.

Even so outside of Judeo-Christian values, that still shows me that he never TRUELY loved her. Because a monogamous love relationship isn't just about Joe's sexual interests or his general well-being. Sure some may object but that still would be selfish to me & caring about his own self & not the other. If within the next 86 days my fiancee had something happen to her that ultimately meant I would never to get to experience or start a wonderful sex filled relationship with her I still wouldn't drop her & move onto something else.

Yes, I know, writers of fictional romance novels all over the world will be crushed by my example. But it's the sort of consequence (ironic) that you run into when you argue consequentialistly. Of course, if you think that being selfish is somehow bad in itself, or you think that breaking up a marriage is somehow bad in itself, or if you think that these things are bad because God commands not to do them, then you might have a way out. Well, at least of this problem.

Jeff250 wrote:You can't possibly know what will be best for all relationships or for all people, and yet you pretend as if you can.

Uhm, nope. I don't pretend I know what's best for everyone. There are some very difficult situations that can come up in a marriage where I would be so far out of my depth in offering advice that I wouldn't even try. But they are pretty extreme situations.

I DO feel entirely comfortable in saying that walking out of a marriage because you are "bored" is a mistake.

I also feel comfortable in saying that walking out on a marriage because your partner is sick or injured is treachery, plain and simple.

Jeff250 wrote:if you think that being selfish is somehow bad in itself

Yep. I do. At that point we've stepped completely out of "what leads to the best sex life" part of the discussion and into a "should people be honest" part.

Sir Sam II wrote:Because a monogamous love relationship isn't just about Joe's sexual interests or his general well-being.

Bingo!

Traditional western marriage vows take the form of a promise. I'm not real familiar with other cultures wedding vows, but I would assume that most of them involve a promise. "In sickness and in health", is specifically in ours.

Jeff250 wrote:Suppose that Joe also doesn't have to deal with the guilt associated with presuming Judeo-Christian values.

If by this you mean he doesn't mind lying, and he thinks more of his own good than his wifes, then I don't suppose there is much else I could do to convince Joe he was making a mistake.

To clarify, YES, I think a monogamous relationship leads to the best sex life. But no, I don't think that is the ONLY reason to stay in a monogamous relationship. Keeping your promises, is a very good reason. And I'm with Sir Sam II 100% that if the Joe's major focus is on himself, the relationship is in for a VERY rocky road anyway. Marriage is about caring MORE for your partner's well being than you do for your own.

What's wrong with getting your rocks off once in awhile? Nothing, live life and love it. (usually means don't be religious)

Kilarin, it seems like that to make monogamy the best choice in some situations, you're back to appealing to an absolute, Judeo-Christian-like morality instead of to the personal consequences of staying monogamous.

Kilarin and the rest. Thanks for the answers and the uplift.

Bee

Bettina wrote:Thanks for the answers and the uplift

Glad if we could be of any help.

Zuruck wrote:What's wrong with getting your rocks off once in awhile?

Some of us prefer to do MORE than just "get our rocks off", we would rather make love, and more than "once in a while".

Jeff250 wrote:Kilarin, it seems like that to make monogamy the best choice in some situations, you're back to appealing to an absolute, Judeo-Christian-like morality instead of to the personal consequences of staying monogamous.

I think that evidence and logic both support that people in long term monogamous relationships are the most satisfied with their sex lives. And that, usually, the fewer partners you have had, the better your sex life will be. With the ideal being one partner in a lifetime.

But the key here is monogamous "RELATIONSHIPS". If the only reason that you are in a relationship is to get good sex, then the relationship is on very shaky ground and, as a result, the sex isn't likely to have the joy, the exuberance, and the heights of ecstasy that a "loving" relationship does.

Ironic as it seems, if your primary goal in life is to have good sex, you will miss out on the best sex.

So up to this point, the argument can still be used by a non-Christian if the want. Many who are not Christians believe in loving relationships.

BUT, as I said before, when we step into the field of "what do you do when your partner is sick or injured and no longer capable of sex", we step into a different argument. It IS related though. If you love your spouse more than you love sex, I believe you will KEEP your promise, stick by your contract, and remain faithful.

If our hypothetical "Joe" loves sex more than he loves his spouse, then no, I doubt if this argument will have any weight with him at all. But I DO pity anyone so shallow.

Come on, Kilarin, you can come up with long-winded responses trying to justify any example I can conceive to fit into your schema, but the fact remaining is that there is no inherent reason why ending a monogamous relationship can't be better for one or both parties involved than actually continuing it.

Your schema isn't always preferrable, unless you already presume some sort of moral ideal, like relationships should be preserved in themselves, or that anyone who terminates a relationship for shallow reasons deserves to be pitied. This rampant idealism isn't compatible with consequentalism. I mean, who's to say that both parties can't walk away from a so-called loving relationship and become involved in even more loving relationships? You practically have to believe in the ideal that monogamous relationships ought to be pursued at all costs before you can even take up the position that they are better for everyone.

Jeff250 wrote:Come on, Kilarin, you can come up with long-winded responses trying to justify any example I can conceive to fit into your schema

I'll strive to be brief then. :p

Jeff250 wrote:Your schema isn't always preferrable, unless you already presume some sort of moral ideal, like relationships should be preserved in themselves,

I've already agreed that yes, there are extreme cases where a marriage should (or could) be broken up. Adultery and physical abuse were examples I gave, but I won't limit it to only those.

But, if someone walks out of a relationship because they are bored, they will just find that their next relationship gets boring as well. Probably MORE boring because they are now making it more and more difficult to establish sexual unity. (See Drakona's post about trying to make the "shoe fit") The principle here is simple, if its best to have fewer partners, then you should only break up a marriage for something VERY extreme. Boredom isn't extreme and happens in EVERY relationship eventually.

AND, I already admitted that my insistence that you should stay and be loyal to a disabled spouse must appeal to much higher levels of virtue than just "I want good sex", but then I think the entire argument rests on a requirement of actual "Love" for your spouse. I never pretended otherwise. I started off with "I believe that God Invented Sex". Certainly the argument is valid from a non-Christian view point, but if you don't believe in loving your spouse the entire point is a waste of your time.

Since it seems all we're doing is repeating our arguments, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether there can be non-extreme circumstances for a monogamous couple to break up and still move on to have better sex/relationships.

Jeff250 wrote:the fact remaining is that there is no inherent reason why ending a monogamous relationship can't be better for one or both parties involved than actually continuing it.

The whole thread has been about how monogamy is generally better than the alternative, that it's the ideal that makes the most sense to strive for. I repeat: GENERALLY better.

Not "always, guaranteed, 100% better, no matter the wacky scheme Jeff250 throws together in a fit of pedantic posting."

There are in fact circumstances in which some couples break up for non-extreme reasons and end up both having better sex lives wherever else they go. We don't have to talk hypothetically there; we probably have people on this board who can tell us about them. But the existance of such exceptions doesn't nullify the broad, general point that people tend to be happier and have better sex lives the closer they are to the one-partner ideal.

Nobody has said or even hinted that they can *prove* that it's *always* best for *everybody in every circumstance* to be monogamous, so why are you chiding Kilarin for failing to do so?

Lothar wrote:There are in fact circumstances in which some couples break up for non-extreme reasons and end up both having better sex lives wherever else they go.

AH! The light dawns! I think I have been misunderstanding Jeff250's questions.

Yes, I freely acknowledge that it is possible to break up a marriage for trivial reasons and have another relationship later that works.

But my advice is still that you should NEVER leave your spouse because you get bored (or for any OTHER trivial reason). It is LIKELY that the next relationship will be even more difficult to make work than your current one (since it has to get over the baggage that you picked up in the current one). AND, in order to make the next relationship work, you will have to learn to NOT break it up just because you get bored.

But "this is a bad idea", and "it makes the next more difficult", does NOT mean it is impossible to recover from a failed relationship. I never thought that and I certainly didn't mean to imply that.

If you can avoid making the mistake in the first place, by all means, DO. If you are a virgin, stay so until you get married! If you are married, stick with it if at ALL possible. But now is now and you must move on and do the best you can for where you are. It's never to late to try and make the next relationship last forever.

is that all we think a monogamous relationship is SEX?!?!?!?!

A marrage is the joining of two souls, individuals, people call it anything you want, yet it is still a relationship. it is merging those two beings into one life. Many of us have life long friends of the same sex but do you want to have a monogamous relationship with them? A marrage is the deepest kind of lifelong friendship you can imagine. the sex is just a bonus. when I first married my wife I thought I was in-love with her, but I really had no idea what love was. as I get older I realise that it was more an infatuation that grew into love now after 25 years I have found out what REAL love is. it is so much more deep than I could have imagined and our sex-life is just a way we use to express it. my wife is my best friend a woman that I am proud to be seen with, a woman that I can laugh with, cry with, joke with and hold no secrets from. a woman that has been my best friend for over half of my life and who is the mother of my 8 children. She is who I put on a pedestal every day as she is deserving. this is not the kind of relationship you can acheive out side of monogamy.