RE: The Affairs of Men

RE: The Affairs of Men (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 8:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval I think of marriage as a legal contract. If the agreed upon contract specifies monogamy and sexual activity, then the partners should honor their committments. Lying, deceit, affairs and witholding sex to gain an advantage in the relationship are loose-loose situations for everyone. Well I see this thinking as a mistake, because it presupposes too much. What parties in any field of endeavor are able "to contractually agree" on specific points for a lifetime? Such thinking is part of the problem, IMO. Its just not smart to expect a 5 - 10 or 20 year old agreement to control people in the present. The fact is people evolve and change --- so the trick is to evolve together. This is what keeps a marriage going and what keeps it alive.

Smith117 -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 8:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Well I see this thinking as a mistake, because it presupposes too much. What parties in any field of endeavor are able "to contractually agree" on specific points for a lifetime? Such thinking is part of the problem, IMO. Its just not smart to expect a 5 - 10 or 20 year old agreement to control people in the present. The fact is people evolve and change --- so the trick is to evolve together. This is what keeps a marriage going and what keeps it alive. The keyword is "evolve," not wait 5 years and say you have a perpetual 'headache' and there will be no sex. That is not evolution. It's basic breach of contract. If a woman expects a man to sleep with her and only her, she better be sleeping with him, otherwise it kinda negates the whole "only her" part. If there is no "her" there can be no "only her."

Real_Trouble -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 8:31:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petdave quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Trouble We can argue all we want about our rationality and ability to surpress our instincts, and in some cases it is true, but that doesn't mean we do not have instincts or that we are not motivated by them; believing that humans are some hyper-rational being that can choose to ignore their biology at will is a dangerous world view. In some cases? Anyone with deeply impaired ability to control their base instincts tends to get removed from society pretty quickly, and for good reason. i mean, hell... If my biology dictates that i need to go out and get myself some strange, and i'm short on cash, my biological imperative would be to just take what i want by force, right? Man's gotta do what a man's gotta do... can't expect me to just repress that sort of thing. No. Wrong. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying you are fooling yourself if you think you can repress your biology entirely. Human behavior is very definitely heavily influenced by biology. We, of course, have some measure of control over the expression thereof (though not always - try to stop breathing until you die; it's harder than you think), but I believe many people delude themselves into thinking they have far more active control than they really do. I suggest a better system is to passively keep yourself out of troublesome situations before they arise; willpower is not infinite, and instinct is stronger than people believe. That is fact. Likewise, we have a myriad of cognitive biases that constantly cloud and mirror our thinking in a modern world; that's just how it is. Furthermore, at no point did I say people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions; I have no idea at all where you pulled that from. Read what I say more carefully next time; I don't appreciate being mischaracterized.

wanderingstray -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 8:41:33 PM)
The idea of men having sex only with their wives is recent and impractical. It was tried and it does not work. Some men are OK with it, bu not most, and neither are their wives OK with being exclusive. It fails as a global prescription. It works for only some people. It doesn't matter much because of how many people don't get married anyway. A young man and a young woman of the same age make a terrible match sexually. The man's desires will be several times that of hs mate's. He will be frustrated; she will be vexed for being under constant attack. You need to put young men together with older women whose sex drive has shifted into gear. Let older men and younger women be matched by similar interests and intensity. Or leave young women out of it except for being mothers, which is what suits them anyway. Then once the kids are grown, the empty nester women can have at it, cougarizing their neighbor's lawn mowing sons with gleeful abandon.

DomAviator -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 9:35:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingstray A young man and a young woman of the same age make a terrible match sexually. The man's desires will be several times that of hs mate's. He will be frustrated; she will be vexed for being under constant attack. You need to put young men together with older women whose sex drive has shifted into gear. Let older men and younger women be matched by similar interests and intensity. Or leave young women out of it except for being mothers, which is what suits them anyway. Then once the kids are grown, the empty nester women can have at it, cougarizing their neighbor's lawn mowing sons with gleeful abandon. I disagree, I find young women to be horny as three peckered billygoats and I think that they make a better sexual match with an older man... I think that young men and young women doesnt work. It should be older men and young women... and then as the women mature they can start the mrs robinson thing as their husband breaks in the next 19 year old. See this is why I want to start my own polygamist sect but to leave the mormon dogma and Laura Ingalls costumes out of it... Just a herd of women 18 and up with me... Kind of like Charlie Manson and his girls but without that whole killing spree thing .....

Vendaval -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 9:37:40 PM)
I did not state "life-time commitment". People grow and change, they can renegotiate or end the contract.

Smith117 -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 9:50:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval I did not state "life-time commitment". People grow and change, they can renegotiate or end the contract. In most conventional religions, marriage IS a life-time commitment, or at least it's supposed to be.

Vendaval -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 10:14:04 PM)
Marriage to me is a legal contract, not a religious one; of course for many Americans, it is both.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 10:21:29 PM)
quote: In most conventional religions, marriage IS a life-time commitment, or at least it's supposed to be. Yes, but there are allowances for divorce. In Judeo-Christian law; adultery, death, and marriage to a non-believer are valid reasons for divorce. The non-believer clause is broad. If your spouse repeatedly commit sins, then they are a non-believer.

WyldHrt -> RE: The Affairs of Men (6/11/2008 11:58:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixidustpet touch is needed. intimacy is needed. i sleep in the same bed with my husband. we've not had sexual relations in nearly 2 years now, by his choice. he has not hugged me or touched me in any way other than "sorry, brushed against you while passing in the hallway" in over 6 months now. its a proven fact that infants who are not touched enough often fail to thrive. adults are NOT that much different. i know that i am in need of touch much more often than wolf is, and it is VERY difficult to feel ok and in balance when i'm suffering from skin hunger, and the need to be touched. when a relationship isnt nourished by intimacy, that relationship is not going to last. intimacy CAN be fostered in other ways (such as when one person is not physically able to have intercourse, and the couple finds other ways to keep that closeness alive) but if you dont have that intimacy component met, the chance is MUCH higher that one or both of the couple is going to stray. kitten, a week and a half away from leaving. Amen, Kitten- and good luck to you. From one very much in your position (but for far longer), I understand. It is one thing for your partner to refuse physical relations by their choice (bad), but another for them to do so and add emotional withdrawal on top of it (much worse). Biological imperatives aside, how long can anyone really thrive in a situation where they are both physically and emotionally bereft? Touch is needed, and not only in the physical sense. IIRC, the marriage vows include "love, honor, and cherish". When that is willfully broken, the marriage is dead, and all that is left is moving on. quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold There is never a valid reason to cheat. Can't agree with it.... Can't condone it.... Nope. Nada. Nyet. Congrats on your moral absolutes, Griswold. Feel free to talk to me when you have spent over 9 years trying to honor your vows to someone who, it turns out, couldn't give a shit less.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125