www.Terrorizer.com - View topic - Monogamy (Why One Gowl Is All You're Allowed)
TERRORIZER FRONT PAGE
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:30 am



Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
 Monogamy (Why One Gowl Is All You're Allowed) 
Author Message
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm
Posts: 13064
Location: Leigh
Post Monogamy (Why One Gowl Is All You're Allowed)
edit for context: for those who missed it, I didn't start a thread on this, it was moved from the TV thread.

Did anyone watch "The 7.39" the other day?

I quite liked it, but my girlfriend really didn't like how it ended as she felt it condoned having an affair. But I feel she might have been reading too much into it.

It did make me question the idea of monogamy though, surely it's unnatural? In as much if we feel things for more than one person we can't help that, so I see that as natural, but there is really no other reason that 'tradition' and self imposed (in a very general sense) cultural boundaries that say you can only be with one person. Similarly marriage I feel is an odd concept, you'r making a promise to feel a certain way forever which you can never know. Sure you can get divorced, but does that not just devalue marriage and make it a bit more of a hollow gesture. But with monogamy I feel it also kind of makes partners into possessions, as if one owns the other, which again I don't agree with. I have no massive desire to be polygamous, and this isn't me saying I want multiple partners, but should I love* someone else and they love me back, I don't think there should be any reason for that to be denied because someone else got there first, but at the same time I don't think you should be expected to leave the first person either if you still loved them, as I believe people can be capable of loving more than one person.

*though I do have my reservations about the concept of love, as an unquantifiable feeling that we can never gauge I'm dubious as to what love really feels like and if what one person defines as the feeling of love is the same as another person, and if there's is the same feeling of another again.

rant/tangent over haha

_________________
Last.fm


Last edited by Annihislater on Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:45 am
Profile WWW
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 28491
Post Re: The TV Thread.
Annihislater wrote:
It did make me question the idea of monogamy though, surely it's unnatural?


"Unnatural" - a word used by people who wear synthetic fabrics, benefit from modern medicine, drive cars and use the internet as an excuse to ignore the things other people do that they don't like.

[for the sake of avoiding another unnecessary argument, I'm not saying that you're doing this, merely pointing out the role of the word "unnatural" as a form of condemnation tends to be fairly dishonest, and that if we're really interested in being "natural" - whatever that actually means - we'd need to look at an awful lot more than just our sexual habits. There is a valid debate to have about the orthodox nature of monogamy, of course, but for me measuring it against some judged concept of "natural" isn't the way of doing it)


Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:34 am
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm
Posts: 13064
Location: Leigh
Post Re: The TV Thread.
Those things don't go against nature, and are arguably still a part of nature as all will have come from something found in nature, or created using nature, by humans are themselves a part of nature. If a man makes something it's man made, but do we say rabbit holes are unnatural as they are made by rabbits?

But I was talking nature in the sort inherent way something is, rather than basically the all encompassing natural things 'mother nature' sort of way. To me a feeling of love/desire/lust/want is beyond out control, we don't choose to feel that way, so I put that down to it being a natural thing that we feel.

Using medicine doesn't go against nature, if those chemicals or whatever it is in medicine makes you better then they would make you better irrespective of the invention of medicine. It's just something that was always there that was yet to be discovered/worked out prior to medicine.
But denying a feeling that doesn't have any real adverse side effect (potential STI epidermic aside) doesn't make any sense to me.

Other than financially speaking, is there any other real benefit to monogamy? Or rather are their any downsides to polygamy? Perhaps jealousy? But I reckon that wouldn't be an issue if Polygamy was the done thing, it's only because were so set in the one person for one person way of thinking that I reckon jealousy would come into it.

How many people does the average person meet (as in talk to properly) in a lifetime? A quick google has someone estimating 200,000. Out of of the billions on people who will have been alive at the same time as you. How can you possibly find 'the one' out of such a narrow pool of people? Yet most decide in the first half of their lives that they have found the one and that's it.

I know I'm making massive generalisations and dealing with it as an idea rather than a reality. But it just doesn't sit comfortably with me, the idea that should I fell in love with someone else and they loved me back, I'd be in the wrong if I had an affair/left my current partner. I don't see why something beyond your control should be seen as wrong, and by extension why you should deny yourself what makes you happy for the sake of another who has a 'hold' over you because you are in a relationship.

_________________
Last.fm


Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:58 am
Profile WWW
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 28491
Post Re: The TV Thread.
By that reasoning, monogamy is natural too - the capacity for humans to only fuck one person is available in nature. The trouble with "unnatural" is that, broken down, it means very little.

I started to type out a long answer to the rest of your points, but thought better of it, and decided to keep it simple. My problem with arguments of this nature is that they very quickly turn into generalisations about why other people are doing things and projections of our own values onto them, so I'll keep it at this - my monogamy is not about "denying feelings", making myself feel bad about having desires that I choose not to act upon, or following societal norms without questions. If yours (the hypothetical "you") is, perhaps monogamy isn't for you right now.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:34 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm
Posts: 13064
Location: Leigh
Post Re: The TV Thread.
I did say I was being very general. And I'm not saying monogamy is necessarily unnatural. More that they don't have to be opposites, why do they have to be ideas at odds with each other, why can't both be accepted? In a sense why can't polygamy be the norm, and those wishing to be with just a single person be so. Rather than the way it is where its deemed wrong for someone to have feelings for more than one person, or at least they are expected not to act on it.

Can you say you specifically only want one person and will never feel anything for anyone. Because if you are with someone monogamy is kind of like a default position. I don't think people into polygamy actively seek out multiple partners at once. I think it's entirely possible to be open to the idea and be monogamous for the time being as you haven't found anyone else. And it's not even that I think you should actively seek someone else, but should you find someone it shouldn't be an issue.

I don't think I'm articulating what I mean very well here. I know what I mean in my head, I think I'm just struggling to get it down in terms that can't be misunderstood.

It should be noted I'm not saying monogamy should be banned. If polygamy became the norm, and it was an issue that people were being monogamous, then yeah, I'd say that was unnatural, as it comes down to the individual and what they feel. If you are denying what you feel in favour of a standard or rule that is just a social norm and has no real reason for being, I'd say it was unnatural.

I'm defining natural in this instance as a feeling beyond your control. If you have a better word for that, then by all means I'll use that word instead, as I kind of feel half your argument is about the semantics of nature.

And it's not that that I want to be polygamous, it's not like I have people lined up who I want to be with as well. But watching the tv program in question, I was rooting for the couple having the affair, simply because they seemed to be a genuine connection there, and it seemed silly that because they were tied to relationships they shouldn't be together. Perhaps it's manipulatory writing/directing/editing, and perhaps I'm just a bit selfish, but that was the train of thought it lead me on.

_________________
Last.fm


Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:04 pm
Profile WWW
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 28491
Post Re: The TV Thread.
Annihislater wrote:
Can you say you specifically only want one person and will never feel anything for anyone.


This is what I tried to avoid in my last post. FOR ME (And I'm not willing or able to talk for anyone else) this is not what monogamy is. If this is what it is for you, perhaps monogamy isn't for you right now.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:20 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm
Posts: 13064
Location: Leigh
Post Re: The TV Thread.
What is monogamy for you? (genuine question, not an attempt to be facetious,) And how would falling for someone else tie into what you see it as? What would you do about it?

_________________
Last.fm


Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:35 pm
Profile WWW
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 28491
Post Re: The TV Thread.
Borrow bas' basement.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:22 pm
Profile
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 28491
Post Re: The TV Thread.
For me, being in a monogamous relationship means choosing to develop my relationship over a long-term with one person, rather than have a greater number of short-term sexual relationships. It doesn't mean "denying my feelings" because I accept that I'll continue to be attracted to people, in a similar way to how I continue to want bacon, but I've decided that following those desires aren't what I want to do. I don't believe in spontaneously falling in love with someone else as you seem to be describing, because that's not what I think love is. I might find someone attractive, certainly, but I'm not going to choose to jeopardise what I have for a sexual encounter. If I find myself seriously tempted to do so, it will be because there's a problem with my relationship and it's not entirely working out - I'll then try to fix the relationship, and if I really really can't then I'll end it.

Perhaps the brevity of posts are to blame, but you seem to be arguing that people go around falling in love (or at least having profound and meaningful attraction) with people who they meet, and that by choosing to be in a monogamous relationship you're denying those feelings. For me, that just doesn't describe the actual reality, and seems too simple.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:30 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm
Posts: 13064
Location: Leigh
Post Re: The TV Thread.
I should point out this is about more than just wanting a quick knobbing with x amount of people. I've not really been thinking about this sexually at all, it's been purely about feelings and desires to be with someone else as well. (which is odd in a way that I've taken this position, as it's not a situation I'm currently in)

I take your point that love isn't an instantaneous thing, (I kind of question it being a thing at all, but for the sake of discussion..) but what about over time? I don't think it's an implausible situation to be in regular contact with a person and for feelings to develop over time.

I get what your saying, but the only thing I really have an issue with is the idea that the only circumstance you'd be tempted to 'stray' would be if there was a problem with your relationship. I don't know how you could possibly know how you will feel, it almost comes across as blaming something else for something you'd want. Why would you not be tempted if your relationship was healthy? Why does there have to be a problem for you to develop feelings for someone else? That just sounds like you'd have been actively suppressing feelings if the only time they come out is when there is a problem.

I get that people don't go falling in love all the time, but I just don't think it's implausible that people can 'love' more than one person. And should one have got there before the other, it seems wrong that the latter should be denied. I'm not proposing that as of next Wednesday we all start looking for a pre defined number of additional partners. I just don't think having feelings for someone outside of a relationship should be seen as a bad thing. And as I think I mentioned, I just don't like how monogamy can turn into essentially ownership.

I get that it'd be almost impossible to work in reality, and ego, logistics, and established values would kill any hope of a society where people are free to love (pardon the sickly sweet choice of phrase :p ), but as an idea, I still think I prefer it to the idea of monogamy.

_________________
Last.fm


Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:08 pm
Profile WWW
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm
Posts: 13064
Location: Leigh
Post Re: The TV Thread.
Responsibility for what?

Also is it a choice? Unless you found a minimum 2 other people who you fell for and whom were open to polygamy you are pretty much without choice. How many people do you fall for, let alone those more open minded. I reckon your chances are slim at best.

_________________
Last.fm


Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:12 pm
Profile WWW
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21527
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
My feelings on this have changed over time. In some ways, a man is only as good as his options. I have a rich friend that believes monogamy is for 'loser men that don't have many options'. The only reason he will get married is to have kids in his mid 40's to a much younger woman. His view is extreme, but i get where he is coming from. In the past i thought he was a dick but now i would probably do the same thing if i were in his position.

In many ways men buy into monogamy because it's a way for them to get sexual access that they wouldn't otherwise have. On another level, it feeds into a romantic delusion that men also have for various complicated reasons.

Personally if you find a person that is worth committing to over the long haul i say go for it, but the odds are statistically against you, and that's for men and women btw.

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:26 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:22 pm
Posts: 17466
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
My apartment smells of rich monogamy.

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:44 pm
Profile WWW
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 28491
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
Be in the kind of relationship you want to be in.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:02 pm
Profile
Lifer, Deather, Hesher, Whatever.
Lifer, Deather, Hesher, Whatever.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:01 pm
Posts: 953
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
Monogamy has one advantage over the alternatives in that it makes property inheritance laws and all that other stuff far easier to work with.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:07 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21527
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
Faggotpassword wrote:
Monogamy has one advantage over the alternatives in that it makes property inheritance laws and all that other stuff far easier to work with.


How does it make it easier? If you are single it's easier. Nobody can make claims on the assets you inherit.

Have i misunderstood?

Monogamy, in the form of marriage, had a clear financial advantage for women once upon a time, but now i think that is less the case.

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:08 pm
Profile
Climate Control
Climate Control
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:54 pm
Posts: 6303
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
Swinging, problem solved.

_________________
Mo Mo Gaddafi wrote:
His massive cock pleasured me immensely.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:09 pm
Profile
Lifer, Deather, Hesher, Whatever.
Lifer, Deather, Hesher, Whatever.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:01 pm
Posts: 953
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
Stat_Rad wrote:
Faggotpassword wrote:
Monogamy has one advantage over the alternatives in that it makes property inheritance laws and all that other stuff far easier to work with.


How does it make it easier? If you are single it's easier. Nobody can make claims on the assets you inherit.

Have i misunderstood?

Monogamy, in the form of marriage, had a clear financial advantage for women once upon a time, but now i think that is less the case.



In comparison to polygamous marriages (or polygyny, since that's the most popular form) it's far simpler to just have one set of heirs than divide it amongst multiple sets of spouses and kids.

And nowadys, it would simply be a clusterfuck. Can you imagine how messy divorce would get in relation to visitation laws, property division, or what happens if a spouse becomes incapacitated and they want spousal permission to turn off the machines or not?

I should have been clearer.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:28 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21527
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
Faggotpassword wrote:
In comparison to polygamous marriages.......



ah, ok, i missed the context.

thx

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:33 pm
Profile
Super Trooper
Super Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:32 pm
Posts: 8683
Post Re: Monogamy (Why One Flange Is All You're Allowed)
I was thinking about this the other day (or something slightly tangetial, which is this:) So far as I'm aware, every human society that we know of, in history and wherever in the world, has some idea of 'marriage'. That's kind of odd isn't it? Presumably it's because marriage is about societal structure and not really anything to do with 'love' (which is a fairly recent European concept anyway). Which is also why marriage still exists as a legal concept in modern day Europe when it's no longer a religious thing for a lot of people (at least not in the way it was).

Societies tend to be structured the way they are for a reason. Not that I'm saying they always exist in the fairest or best way, but there is a reason things are the way they are, generally, so have a think about what that reason might be in this case. Christianity mostly presumably.

_________________
Guardian-reading Fairtrade coffee-drinking bollocks


Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:15 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 135 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.