Love is cursed by monogamy ?

Original post by TheBigCh

Someone's been watching Take Me Out.

I thought that when I saw the title! That guy was well dodgy!

Reply 5

HP15

Well.

Look into swinging if you get bored of shagging 1 woman.

Reply 6

Original post by 99luft Balons

Is love cursed by monogamy?

It means we're socially conditioned to believe we should only love one person, thus restricting love.You can love more than one person at a time but it rips you apart to be unfaithful to either.

Lol so someone heard a phrase on Take Me Out, didn't understand it so googled it, then thought this would be a good question to nick for a thread.

Smooth :cool:

Reply 7

Such *******s. Hence why you crash and burn when you say that to a woman with any sense.. (Take Me Out should have told you that too :tongue:

)

Reply 8

TheBigCh

Original post by Angel83

I thought that when I saw the title! That guy was well dodgy!

Nah I thought that at first then decided that:
Yes, it's pathetic he can't stick to one woman at once and I can't imagine most people wanting anything to do with him...
But it's better he's upfront about this than cheating on people.

Reply 9

Ortegas

5

That's right. You can LOVE A person and yet spend your time with other partners as well. It's an opened relationship where emotional investment and loyalty is put forward, but not sexual loyalty, since locking someone with only you accelerates the demise of your relationship.

We have never been programmed to be monogamous, it's bull****. If you take a good look at most of these romantic craps, you will see they are just wandering in a circle, where happiness and hurt keeps mixing together, ups and downs, as they say, are normal, they must feel that way to be closer to their "love".

I say **** it, life is too short to be through those ****ty mental states. It's better to be free and do whatever you want, yet still knowing that there is more than one person need you and truly love you.

Reply 10

Original post by Ortegas

That's right. You can LOVE A person and yet spend your time with other partners as well. It's an opened relationship where emotional investment and loyalty is put forward, but not sexual loyalty, since locking someone with only you accelerates the demise of your relationship.

We have never been programmed to be monogamous, it's bull****. If you take a good look at most of these romantic craps, you will see they are just wandering in a circle, where happiness and hurt keeps mixing together, ups and downs, as they say, are normal, they must feel that way to be closer to their "love".

I say **** it, life is too short to be through those ****ty mental states. It's better to be free and do whatever you want, yet still knowing that there is more than one person need you and truly love you.

What works for you doesn't work for everyone else. You do realise that you've just disregarded happy marriages that do exist just because they don't fit your hypothesis, right?

There has not been a single divorce in my family. All of my relatives have married fairly young and the relationships have only come to an end through death. Are you trying to say that they're all living in a delusion? That they're all having secret affairs to keep the main relationship going? Some of these marriages are 50, 60 years strong and the couples are still in love with each other.

Don't act like your inability to sustain monogamous relations is normal, because it's not. It's a cultural and societal norm in the western world and most people are capable of monogamy and happy with it. If polyamory is your thing then good for you, but don't act like you're somehow enlightened and that everyone secretly feels like you, because it's not true. You sound fairy deluded if you think ups and downs are somehow indicative of monogamy being bad; there will be ups and downs in any relationship, polygamous or not.

Reply 11

Original post by Foo.mp3

News to me :holmes:

Precisely. As long as all parties concerned know exactly where they stand, from the outset, I don't see why having feelings for more than one person at a time, and acting on those feelings with more than one person at a time, should rip anyone apart?- because that's what happens in 19th century women's literature? Bitch please :tongue:

Says the girl who's last contribution to the rich fabric of TSR discourse was 'Unsociable hours - share your experiences' .. easy to criticise :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but what TV show was that thread subject ripped from then? :rolleyes:

If you don't like my questions/posts then don't stalk my profile. I made that thread AGES ago. Sad little twerp.

Reply 12

Oh, and for the record, every guy I have known who holds the view that monogamy isn't for them has stated a desire to "settle down" with a wife at some point :rolleyes:

So it's more a case of "let me shag whoever I want while I am young and I can, then I'll settle into the 2.4 kids and a wife deal when it suits me". I do believe that some people are polyamorous, but I think lots of guys just use it as an excuse not to commit.

Reply 13

Original post by Foo.mp3

I'm fairly sure you're smart enough to discern the point I was making :smile:

Wow. You really are an unpleasant creature

FYI I wasn't stalking your profile dear.. I saw your comment on this thread and decided it required a little research for the purposes of bringing balance to the order of things in the TSRiverse :smile:

I don't get the point. If you want to make a point then make it, instead of making nasty vague comments.

Well IMO, a lot of your threads leave much to be desired as well if we're talking worthwhile input. Swings and roundabouts. If you want to do "research", probably best to spend your valuable time on things that matter in real life.

Reply 14

Original post by Foo.mp3

It was a tongue in cheek jibe about the calibre of the post you made, as a reflection on your comment about the calibre of the post the OP had made :rolleyes:

I'm not (typically) one who enters threads just to leave facetious comments though am I; I was ostensibly parodying your comment.. do you want me to spell out what a parody is too? :smile:

I'd love to spend my time on more valuable things only I'm ill so it is in fact a relatively good use of my time to mildly needle certain jumped up madams who've attempted to make other users look stupid

And what exactly was wrong with the post I made? At least I didn't directly steal it from a cheap television program. I was making conversation on the sometimes-difficult notion of shift work with other people in the hospitality industry like myself. If you find a problem with that, then you need to get out more.

Also I don't understand why you think its up to you to take me down a peg or two? I reckon that makes YOU jumped-up about what is your concern and what isn't actually, so perhaps you should back off and contribute where your contributions are being asked for. Go for a walk around the park and kick another defenceless animal or something, as you so clearly like to do judging from your latest thread contribution.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 15

Original post by Foo.mp3

Not sure I agree with the use of the term 'excuse', one can have phases surely? Why should the world be so black and white?:

'Either you're a monogamist for life or you're just in denial and making excuses'?..

Naw. I'm a polygamist now, yes because it suits me, I may revert to monogamy later, yes when it suits me.. simples.

I wouldn't say someone is really a "true" polygamist if they can flexibly choose as and when it suits, and it certainly doesn't fit with Ortegas' argument that we're somehow not programmed for monogamy. If we're programmed to be the opposite, then someone who has embraced polygamy has no reason to change away from it. One can have phases, of course, but most people I have known grew out of the "shag everything" stage after their teens and have grown to value a more lasting/tangible connection. Hence I see it as an excuse, because they are using polygamy as a lifestyle choice that suits and explains their desire to be promiscuous, rather than as a true preference for romantic relations.

I'm sure you will revert when it suits you, as I'm certain you wouldn't be happy long-term with a woman who was able to love and sleep with other men while being in a partnership with you. Hence why truly polygamous people tend to partner people who are also polygamous, rather than dating monogamous people. Dating monogamous people when you're not monogamous yourself is both arrogant and a waste of time.

Reply 16

Original post by Foo.mp3

Unless men 'giving up the game' is a function of opportunity/energy e.g. if we maintain the same levels of both throughout time some might remain polyamists? :holmes:

Polyamy isn't about "the game", it's people genuinely being able and needing to sustain more than one relationship at once. It's not about conquest and sleeping around. I'm sure some men would choose to engage in casual, non-exclusive relationships ad infinitum but that is not "normal" in our society.

Original post by Foo.mp3

I think his comments must be taken with a pinch of salt. Red blooded males are programmed to want to spread their seed, ergo they're not, generally, programmed for monogamy. That does not however mean that they're necessarily programmed for polygamy throughout their adult lives, nor that they're incapable of monogomy, or having a genuine preference for it in many cases, at some stage

I've said to you before that I think monogamy, in essence, is a choice, and I stand by that. I don't buy this "programming" business whatsoever though. We've moved on quite a bit from original man where these things were a necessity for the survival of the human race. Again, biological programming is largely an excuse, everyone has free will and willpower and implying that men somehow have no choice in wanting to sleep around because it's part of their "programming" is too simplistic for my liking.

Original post by Foo.mp3

Lasting/tangible connections can exist between multiple partners, indeed the lad makes a good point in that if you don't see someone very often/place all your emotional connectivity/wellbeing at the feet of a sole individual, you take some of the pressure out of your relations too, and thus arguably extend their lifetime (in certain circumstances). Granted they may only amount to fairly shallow relations

Of course they can, hence polyamy. I would never say that a couple should be dependent on each other and I think it's important to have your own space, but for that own space to be sleeping with someone else when you're not both polyamorous people? Ridiculous, arrogant and selfish piffle.

Original post by Foo.mp3

Assuming I loved that woman, I'm sure it could be difficult, though I have never been in a mutually polyamourous relationship with a woman I truly loved so I cannot say either way. I do have a conception of that kind of love as being some that is probably only possible within a monogamous relationship though aye

Then you're not inherently polyamorous. There's one I respect on this forum, she has a fiancé who I am sure she adores, and other partners at the same time - I highly doubt that she somehow feels her love for her fiancé/partners is less special because she has more than one relationship going on, but I would never assume I could speak on her behalf.

Original post by Foo.mp3

Up to a point. There are opportunities for friendship, learning, entertainment/fun and development in the early stages of meeting new people, or 'dating', I'm sure you will agree :smile:

Interesting like a social/psychological experiment but those interactions do not add real value to the monogamous person's life, it simply leads many of them to question their worth when it inevitably goes tits up - and that is something you should know quite clearly by now.

Reply 17

Schmokie Dragon

Original post by 99luft Balons

Is love cursed by monogamy?

It means we're socially conditioned to believe we should only love one person, thus restricting love.You can love more than one person at a time but it rips you apart to be unfaithful to either.

If someone finds themselves needing or wanting more than one loving, meaningful relationship then trying to fit into a monogamous lifestyle can indeed make things difficult.

Monogamy is widely conditioned into us. There are comparatively few cultures that openly embrace multiple relationships, and even then they often come with other conditions (such as it only being acceptable for a man to have multiple wives). Just an edit to say that I also believe some (perhaps) most people are happiest in a monogamous relationship. Whether that is a result of choice, biology or conditioning is moot. People should do what makes them happy and fulfilled, as long as they're not harming others through intention, deceit or negligence. Being poly does not mean I have less respect for mono people and does not mean I think everyone is or should try poly.

If you don't find that monogamy works for you, try polyamory or other non-monogamous lifestyles. 'The Ethical Slut' is a great book to read on the subject. Those of us who live non-monogamous lifestyles do face prejudice - to many we're whores, cheats, unfair, indecent, etc. We're a minority and like any minority we have a certain amount of crap to deal with. Just remember - non-monogamy is not about having a 'license to cheat' and it's not about brushing infidelity under the carpet. It's about having fullfiling relationships that are no limited to the idea that someone can only love, enjoy and share time with one other person. In an ethical non-monogamous relationship there are still rules and boundaries and everyone is kept informed about as much as they want or need to hear. People still get hurt, people still cheat, there is still hardship and heartbreak. That's part of being human. It just means that the people involved are freer to explore their needs and desires without the oppressive conditioning that tells them that wanting to be involved with more than one person is wrong, greedy or unfair.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 18