Monogamy

Monogamy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

sadisticangel101 -> Monogamy (12/27/2009 8:24:21 PM)
I desire monogamy - my definition is only me..no others. My former Sir said that he believed in monogamy - but his definition was to only be with me...yet have others to play with and since i would be there, it wasn't cheating....to me...that defeats the purpose of monogamy. What is the general thought on this? When you agree to a monogamous relationship.....how is it ok to demand others get involved?

DarkSteven -> RE: Monogamy (12/27/2009 8:56:14 PM)
Monogamy is defined as being exclusive to each other. That said, some would state that sex with others would be out, while nonsexual play such as bondage or spanking would be okay with others. And some would state that anything with others would be out.

Rule -> RE: Monogamy (12/27/2009 9:04:58 PM)
The purpose of monogamy in Christianity is to protect the matrimony and the population at large from sexually transmitted diseases, not completely but to a large degree. In this matrimony the man ought ideally to be faithful, whereas the woman, God willing, may have an adulterous extramarital fling: Jesus said to the adulteress, "I do not condemn you either. Go, but do not sin again." In Christianity the matrimony is limited to two persons, one male, one female. This serves to protect the society from the instabilities caused by polygamy. I do think that some people ought to have more than two people in the matrimony, provided that they complement each other. As for you and your ex, was he a dominant or a top? If he had no sexual relations with his play partners, then in a sense he was monogamous and faithful to you - but I can well imagine that you might feel otherwise. Perhaps you both ought not to have married in the first place.

VampiresLair -> RE: Monogamy (12/27/2009 9:10:00 PM)
If you want to be monogamous, you need to define it to your partner. I have been involved in sexually monogamous relationships that were open as far as play goes. I was, for a time, in a relationship where I was monogamous with my secondary partner because my primary partner and I were not sexually involved. I have also been involved in monogamous relationships like the one I am in now where play with someone else is as off limits as sex would be. I do, however, put people into bondage and other situations for photography and that is not considered cheating or nonmonogamy. Every person you deal with will have their own definition, so you need to make sure that they understand and agree with yours when you venture into the relationship. There is no right or wrong with the definitions people have, there are just good and bad fits when it comes to partners. DV

sadisticangel101 -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 7:14:12 PM)
His viewpoint was that as long as it was in front of me, watching him use her, it was still monogamy...for she was just a toy with no meaning, and i shouldn't be upset....i've been cheated on in the past, and for him to think i would willingly bring another into the arena was crazy. And when i questioned if others were just toys, did that mean another man would just be a toy, and i was told i was only for HIM, no one else. Hmmm so men are not toys, only women are?

Rule -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 7:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sadisticangel101 His viewpoint was that as long as it was in front of me, watching him use her, it was still monogamy. [:-] [8\|]

Falcor64 -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 7:53:35 PM)
That really comes back to what VampiresLair said- it's all in the agreed-upon definition! So, if for instance, women are defined as toys and men are not, then that's what they are in that relationship. *At least* until the definition is revised! I personally would not play that way, but that's only my personal opinion here. What matters is what the people in question agreed upon. If something happened that didn't fit the original agreement, then there needs to be some new negotiation. IMHO, nothing should happen that's beyond the scope of the agreement until it can be re-negotiated, though honest misunderstandings need to be treated as such too. It sounds like that may have been the case here. Legal contracts, as well as laws, start with definitions of terms- it's a good idea for BDSM too! FWIW, Falcor

Rule -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 8:09:10 PM)
They were married and he manipulated her into accepting his cheating.

thornhappy -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 8:31:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule The purpose of monogamy in Christianity is to protect the matrimony and the population at large from sexually transmitted diseases, not completely but to a large degree. In this matrimony the man ought ideally to be faithful, whereas the woman, God willing, may have an adulterous extramarital fling: Jesus said to the adulteress, "I do not condemn you either. Go, but do not sin again." In Christianity the matrimony is limited to two persons, one male, one female. This serves to protect the society from the instabilities caused by polygamy. As an aside...there were no major STDs mentioned in Europe until around 1100ad (gonorrhea), and then syphilis hit a few centuries later. For quite awhile extramarital relationships were common among the nobility and priesthood. Monogamy was often pushed as a way to guarantee that the man was caring for children that he fathered, especially when inheritance was involved. During the Roman times, for instance, the woman was expected to have no extramarital contacts, but the men could have mistresses or see prostitutes.

Kirata -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 8:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sadisticangel101 His viewpoint was that as long as it was in front of me, watching him use her, it was still monogamy... Rule nailed this one. His "viewpoint" was... well nevermind, suffice to say you wouldn't find it flattering. K.

sunshinemiss -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 8:42:28 PM)
quote: the one I am in now where play with someone else is as off limits as sex would be. Scratches DV's name off the list. Sigh. quote: I do, however, put people into bondage and other situations for photography and that is not considered cheating or nonmonogamy. *perks...hey now....

Rule -> RE: Monogamy (12/28/2009 8:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy As an aside...there were no major STDs mentioned in Europe until around 1100ad Thank you for supporting my point.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02