Damn, what a hell of a lot of stuff to respond to. You have no idea how happy I am that this thread has turned into a topic of conversation.
Best First wrote:I don't think humans are quite that simple (stupid brain) but i think to dismiss monogomy as nothing more than a construct is a bit... glib i guess.
Oh, glib for sure, sir. Partly drunk, partly just to start some fireworks.
But it holds some truth, though.
In my opinion, the biggest things holding up monogamy as a social paradigm are:
1. Human jealousy. I agree that this is a large sticky problem. When people open themselves up to be loved, they also open themselves up to be hurt. It's natural to be scared to lose something as important to you as the one you love. However, the question is, "Is jealousy intrinsic to a relationship?" I believe that it's not. If I found a girl that totally blew me away sexually, that means nothing to me relationship wise because I've learned that the emotional, loving, supportive aspects my girlfriend give me far outweigh sexual pleasure in the long term.
Sprunk, I'm ALL for the "we're so deep in socialization we don't know what the hell is going on," defense, but I've taken the blue pill: I'm outside the socialization box: I see the strings and I'm not impressed. If I could go back and NOT know, if I could just feel stirrings of rightness and correctness and naturalness when it comes to having sex with one person out of tradition, that would be great. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. And I'm not saying monogamy is a bad thing, or that love and sex CAN'T have a relationship: I'm just saying that, in this ever increasing liberal world of openly gap people and interracial marriages, where social taboos are falling left and right, does monogamy still really need to be a social paradigm, a situation in which virtually all couples find themselves?
2. Patriarchy. If men didn't feel posessive of their woman's sexuality, they wouldn't have a problem sharing it as much. If women's self conception weren't distorted by the goddess/whore dynamic so rampant in Western culture, they wouldn't feel so torn and unsure about trying things sexually that they really want to but are afraid of what their husband might think. If women didn't feel like sex and their sexuality is their big gambling chip, their ace in the hole when it comes to landing a promotion, finding a decent man to have kids with, etc. etc, it would be a different situation. Societally, they hold the cards when it comes to people having sex, and I'm sure many women feel that the fact that their husband can have sex with them is something that has utility. Many a woman has used sex in a relationship as incentive, or lack therof as punishment.
Right. That was a bunch of stuff that may not all make sense, nor completly say what I'm looking to say, but to summarize that point: If society was less judgemental of female sexuality, females would be a lot more open to exploring and enjoying their sexuality.
So... after all that's said and done... has Shanti come to any conclusions about how he wants to handle this issue in his current and possibly future relationships...?
Well, in THIS relationship I've said that being open to non monogamous sexual encounters (swingerish, not open relationship/polyamory) is important to me. As important to me and as deal breaking to me as wanting or not wanting to have kids might be for someone else. That's the only way I can handle it: Be honest about what I want and need, and see where the cards fall. So now she has a question in front of her. I don't see her answering it anytime soon, and I think I'm going to lay off it based on an epiphany I had a few days ago that the best way to stave off human jealousy is to offer her a commitment more than just boyfriend/girlfriend, but that seems directly contradictory to what I said preceeding this last couple sentances.
sprunkner wrote:Yeah, I don't know if that's quite coming through in my posts, but I believe that pretty firmly. I honestly think it's commitment that makes the difference. When you're firmly committed to each other then the sex reflects that level of emotional intimacy.
I agree that sex can get better with emotional intimacy and commitment. I'm not sure about f***ing, though. And even as the sex gets better through emotional intimacy and commitment, it is precisely that emotional intimacy and commitment that should hypothetically release one from monogamy if one so chooses, in a perverse Marxist sort of way.
Sex can be better in a relationship because you KNOW this girl, and she KNOWS you, and to have a level of acceptance where this girl (okay, it's going to get a bit graphic here) lets you be inside her, lets you into her feminity and body, is bad ass. And as you grow together, you begin to know her body, and familiarity with the playing field is always going to help.
But f***** can be good in and out of a relationship because this is about two people who want to orgasm like a starving man wants to eat. This is about physical attractivenss and animal lust. This is about primal, base acceptance.
Can there not be a level of trust between two people where you can be sure the other person won't leave you for a slightly better piece of ass?