oval
|
|
SEX and OWNERSHIP
| 
Dec 31 01:59 UTC 2001 |
so since senna thinks i should contribute more, i thought i'd start a thread
on something i find most puzzling about sex and relationships. it's not as
simple as a question of whether or not 2 people are monogomous, but more of
how jealousy plays into it. does the thought of your partner kissing or
fucking another excite you or make you feel threatened? one argument my friend
had about why she thinks monogomy is the best way is this: "well, what if you
find someone BETTER?" i find it odd that people think this way regarding
sexual relationships, but not platonic ones.
|
i
|
|
response 3 of 73:
|
Dec 31 03:38 UTC 2001 |
</ramble>
Taken literally, "the best possible one for you" is 99.9% sure to be a
person who you'll never even meet amid the worlds billions of people.
Considering the divorce rate in our rather-friendly-to-traditional-het-
monogamy society, it's pretty hard to criticize poly. OTOH, there're
a lot more relationships that need to stay healthy in a triangle than in
a couple - i don't see poly working for more than a small minority.
Ignoring emotions for a moment, non-sexual relationships tend not to have
issues with STD's, Friend of the Court, etc. There's fairly good reason
for a strict pragmatist to be a bit more closed about sexual relationships.
Jealousy seems (to me) to be pretty understandable as a genetic/ego self-
interest thing.
</end ramble>
|
brighn
|
|
response 5 of 73:
|
Dec 31 06:10 UTC 2001 |
#4>I've had a few years to develop no-win arguments against monogamy. Here's
this one: If you honestly believe that there's one "best" person out there,
and it's not the one you're with, then you're ill-advised to limit yourself
to that person. If you don't honestly believe there's one"best" person out
there, it's because you realize that different people can fulfill different
emotional needs, which is also a pro-poly argument. *eg*
#3> POly is a cat-rat farm, as is any alternative lovestyle: The failure rate
is higher because societal support is lower, and so people who are opposed
to the lovestyle has ammo to keep it marginalized, which keeps failure rates
high.
It is currently true, in our society, that polyamory requires a higher level
of self-awareness to succeed, because the social support is lacking.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 8 of 73:
|
Dec 31 22:13 UTC 2001 |
Yes, and sexual compatibility is of varying importance to different
people. In any case, I think most people have had the experience of being
with someone with whom the were more sexually compatible than personally
(non-sexually) compatible, and vice-versa. I think a lot of the
attraction towards a "better" is the hope that someone else might offer
more of both. Intellectually, this is easy to understand. Emotionally it
can be difficult to accept that urge, or even that it exists, both for the
person feeling the tugs and for the current partner.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 9 of 73:
|
Dec 31 23:20 UTC 2001 |
resp:3 I agree that certain outside issues are a factor (but remind me
what a Friend of the Court is again?) and drawing such boundaries to
filter out such problems is a good idea.
I have read brighn's statements regarding polyamory, and it's my
understanding that boundaries must be set in such an arrangement,
too. Granted, they are not the same for monogamy, but they are there,
nonetheless, so I suppose the given is that any relationship(s) must
have structure and boundaries of some sort.
If I may back up a bit, it has been my observation that sex creates an
emotional bond, and I have not only watched the media, but people in
real life. I have seen, usually, that old lovers often may be either
on hostile or friendly grounds-- in reaction to the bond that was
created-- and rarely, is the feeling one of pure indifference, at
least from the outset. Men may be encouraged to downplay it, but I
think, honestly, there is always still a connection of some kind.
resp:4 and would your gf freak out if for some reason, you decided you
sexually needed another man? I know this has been discussed somewhere
before, but I still fail to understand why femme f-f sex is a male
fantasy, while the opposite isn't true.
resp:5 I keep wondering why society has been downplaying marriage in
general. I mean, not only is it opposed to just polyamory, it's
specifically unlawful to practice polygamy (or polyandry, for that
matter) in most world governments. Now, I don't promote polygamy
personally (and the LDS church outlawed it years ago-- that topic has
been discussed here before), but just for the sake of discussion, why
is that so? Marriage may not be the ideal option for everyone, but..
if someone believed that structure was a strong foundation to build a
marriage on, why not?
Perhaps the legal implications of marriage could be discussed (in
another item, if need be)? It is possible that it makes some legal
matters easier to deal with and examine, but I am not a legal expert.
(I ran out of steam on that point, and will wait for comments)
resp:7 It's not always proportions, although that's a popular
choice. A good deal of the time, it's sexual practice, such as
desiring a partner who wants 3-way sex, to practice BDSM, etc.
It should be considered that not all needs must be fulfilled by sex,
so platonic relationships can fulfill a number of them. We were
discussing the concept of "brotherly love" that seems to be lacking in
relations of heterosexual males, or relations between males that are
not sexual in nature.
|