Monogamous or polyamorous?

[Nasty_Deeds]

I am very well traveled and from what I have seen the places that still employ polygamy are places that woman really have very little rights regardless what it says on paper as their laws. Even with Mormons who practice polygamy the women are 2nd class to the men who is considered the ultimate authority within the house hold. When in a marriage where the man's word is law and women walk with downcast eyes in a state of mind of servitude polygamy is successful. The Mormon woman living in a polygamist household are as brainwashed and cowled by their religion as many other types of Christians are brainwashed by theirs.

LOL, I see you have a soapbox too. One thing I have learned in my lifetime, you can't fix the world, it just is what it is.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Interestingly, no one has mentioned where polygamy is most commonly practiced in the world, and without a serious problem with jealousy. In Islam, Muslim men are allowed up to 4 wives. Polygamy isn’t done haphazardly in Muslim countries; the Koran provides strict guidelines as to how Muslim men may marry. As I understand it, under Islamic law, a man must be able to financially provide a separate household for each wife. Also as I understand it, before a Muslim man can take a second wife, he must have the consent of his first wife, before he marries the first wife. Apparently, becoming a polygamist under Islamic law is not a simple process; however, it does seem to work. I do have to say, if a young man wanted to be a polygamist in a Muslim country, it would certainly give him the incentive to become financially successful.

HAHA dude stop reading. I live in a Muslim country and served in Muslim countries. Regardless what Sharia Law states men are totally in charge. You are talking places where a man can kill his wife and daughters as they see fit to pacify family honor. Women are property and treated as such. Marriages are mostly arranged. The first wife will agree to subsequent wives because her husband wishes it. Don't ever think women have rights over there because brother I am there and see it. Not all Muslim countries are as outwardly hardcore. Dubai is very liberal in comparison due to the large international community and its reliance on tourism but don't let it fool you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

LOL, now see, here you are on your soapbox again. I didn't say that I supported Islam; I just said that it works for people who do. You gotta stop letting yourself get upset over every little bit of political rhetoric you read on the internet. It's going to give you an aneurism, Either Islam has, or will in our lifetime, surpass the Christian religion in population. From what I have read, about a third of the earth’s population follows Islam, and with that many followers, I cannot believe every Muslim wife is a 12 year old girl beaten into submission.

Of course it works. It works for the people it works for. For the rest of them-- not so much.

Islam is a very hierarchal religion and the Muslim culture is even more so. It is really about who has and who does not.

The reason Xtianity is not as abusive as Islam is because it comes into contact with other religions, including atheists like myself, who push back. Old testament believers have all the same habits of dogmatic thought and personal privilege that Islamics have.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

LOL, now see, here you are on your soapbox again. I didn't say that I supported Islam; I just said that it works for people who do. You gotta stop letting yourself get upset over every little bit of political rhetoric you read on the internet. It's going to give you an aneurism, Either Islam has, or will in our lifetime, surpass the Christian religion in population. From what I have read, about a third of the earth’s population follows Islam, and with that many followers, I cannot believe every Muslim wife is a 12 year old girl beaten into submission.

Not necessarily physically but culturally woman in these countries are taught to be obedient and to do as they are told. Let me tell you if you think Christian brainwashing is bad you ain't seen nothing yet till you visit a Muslim nation. Now I'm not saying every Muslim is an evil person. I have Muslim friends. But dude many Muslim reminds me of the stories you read about the Inquisition. The issue I have with many Muslim countries is you have no religious freedom. You are either Muslim or you are dead.

I remember hearing stories of Asian business men who moved to American getting their asses handed to them once their wives became westernized and discovered they need not kowtow any longer.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

The issue I have with many Muslim countries is you have no religious freedom. You are either Muslim or you are dead.

Yes, I know.

Just a thought to keep you up at night: have you noticed how Islam is gaining ground in the US, while Christianity is losing ground? Who knows, maybe in the not-so-distant future, the US will become an Islamic country, and then we can all learn about Sharia Law first hand.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Yes, I know.

Just a thought to keep you up at night: have you noticed how Islam is gaining ground in the US, while Christianity is losing ground? Who knows, maybe in the not-so-distant future, the US will become an Islamic country, and then we can all learn about Sharia Law first hand.

I'm not worried. Americans like bacon to much to be overrun

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

I'm not worried. Americans like bacon to much to be overrun

Maybe when the Muslims take over and polygamy becomes the norm, we can find Stella a husband, (and a couple of sister-wives), and she can have the best of both worlds. I can see Stella now: white apron, fishnets and heels, serving her man breakfast in bed.

 

[Perplexi_Lexi]

i prefer polyamorous relationships. everyone is free to enjoy different experiences with different ppl. maybe one day my feelings on this will change, but as of right now i KNOW a monogamous relationship for me would be a complete & total failure.

polygamy is a totally different thing & i'd never want that type of relationship. while i don't mind sharing lol it's not equal sharing. it's 1 husband & multiple wives (or at least that's the only type of polygamy i've ever heard of lol)

anyway that's just my 2 cents

 

[fuckmeat]

Polyamory between consenting adults is one thing. Making polyamorous marriage legal however and normalising it is quite another. I think it'll be a very sad day when people state their marriage vow with something like....

"and forasking all others, keep myself only to him/her, so long as he/she has a high libido and accepts all my depraved perversions as pornography makes me ever more jaded through the years."

I mean seriously?

Plus, the whole point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for kids to be reared in. The chances of that happening in modern western society between two faithful heterosexuals is already pretty slim but start throwing multiple orientations, partners, lovers and casual fucks into the mix and what you have won't be a marriage at all.

And why should it be?

Why broaden the definition of marriage beyond fidelity between two people? Marriage has never been right for everyone and never will be. Stretching its definition to make it a sexual free for all would kill marriage completely.

What about divorces? What about paternity, child support and so on. What about property and inheritance? What about widows/widowers and pensions?

It's a cute thought but all you'll end up with is a lot of rich lawyers.

 

[Jagged]

I think when it comes to open marriage it is up to the couple involved, and the law doesn't really play a role in it. After all isn't a marriage a formal ceremony where the state or religion recognizes the commitment between two people? At the end of the day the way you behave and interact with this other person is what matters.

For those in the gay community many had what we'd call a marriage, and now the state is starting to recognize it. Being fairly right wing I simply think the state should stay out of your business and give everyone a civil union. After all it is about how the couple feels about each other. The church really has no business in the affairs of state. For example if you get marriage license and are married in the Catholic church and years later wish a divorce from the state end things are simple, yes fighting for property and kids and what not isn't easy but for the state is is a matter of paperwork. Still though you'd remain married in the eyes of the church and this is the same for many religions.

As to a polyamorous relationship more power to you, but don't think it will fix your relationship. You need a good stable relationship and than you can have fun. I think at the end of the day we all like sex with other people or at least the idea of it, but love our significant other. Some people I've met couldn't picture life with another and sex with others is only in the realm of fantasy. Some enjoy many partners and what they share with each one.

It is funny many people I've met in long committed relationships look down on those with many partners. On the other hand many people I've met in relationships with more than one partner in a variety of arrangements are almost always happy to hear about people being together and still in love after long periods.

It is what works for you, but nobody should be shut down at the thought of something with out at least exploring it first. You might find marriage is a wonderful and lasting thing and never desire another but for your spouse. Maybe you can enjoy that same relationship, but letting others take part. I don't thing there is a right and wrong to it especially when it comes to human sexuality.

 

[LostBoxers]

I'm new here but I thought I'd throw in my tuppence for what it's worth. For me the question regarding Poly or Mono isn't fixed in stone.

As societies become more 'advanced' and I'll use that term very loosly. Lifestyle options become more flexible. In days gone by if woman didn't find a mate who could bring home the dinner and protect herself and her children in the process in general it didn't bode well for her. So, finding the 'right' partner was extremely important.

Take a look at traditional marriage, once upon a time, the parents decided who you married and if you didn't like it well that was just tough (still goes on in some societies) - marriage, money, children, inheritance etc etc. That's all changed thankgod. Nobody really cared if you shagged half the town so long as you were married to the 'right' person.

In a sense Western Civilisation has become a victim of it's own success, people have for the most part attained a level of existence beyond worrying where their next meal is coming from (for the most part) and beyond religious concerns are free-er to choose their mating habits.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, it's different and its certainly not new. What's important is that the people involved know what they're at and live up to their responsibilities. So what if Dave has three 'wives?' So long as the wives and children are happy, cared for etc etc. Or the old Celtic model where Mary had three husbands etc etc. As long as the parties involved are all singing from the same hymnal then I don't see an issue. It's not for me.
I have one wife and she's fiesty enough for any man

 

[pplwatching]

The church really has no business in the affairs of state. For example if you get marriage license and are married in the Catholic church and years later wish a divorce from the state end things are simple, yes fighting for property and kids and what not isn't easy but for the state is is a matter of paperwork. Still though you'd remain married in the eyes of the church and this is the same for many religions.

In the Catholic Church, in particular, marriage is a sacrament and an unconditional covenant with God. People marry in the Church because they voluntarily want to make the covenant with very specific terms, By marrying in the Catholic Church the couple is freely choosing to allow the Church to act as God's representative in the creation of the covenant, but the couple make the covenant and give the sacrament to each other.

In the Church's eyes an unconditional covenant with God can not be broken, so it follows that there's no concept of divorce (which would require breaking the covenant). The Church does take it upon itself to determine whether the covenant was valid in the first place, in a process called annulment. In the case of annulment a valid covenant with God was never created, therefore the marriage never existed. This is a different concept from divorce, which is dissolving a valid contract. The state doesn't acknowledge this approach and requires a divorce.

Anyone who chooses to marry in the Church voluntarily agrees to all of this, including thae part about monogamy. It could be argued that the state has no business getting involved in something that an individual or the couple voluntarily chooses to agree to with the Church. Presumably people who don't agree with the terms of the covenant, including monogamous fidelity, or do not want the sacrament or a covenant with God to be a part of their marriage choose another way to get married. That's their choice to make and gives them the flexibility to have multiple sexual partners if they want it. Choosing to marry in the Church on it's terms, and then having "buyer's remorse" later isn't the Churches fault.

If someone wants to live this kind of lifestyle, they need to be careful about the kind of binding contracts and agreement that they enter into. Reneging on contracts is, if nothing else, a sign of bad character. (IMO).

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above is my deleted soapbox rant against the Catholic Church

 

[Stella_Omega]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above is my deleted soapbox rant against the Catholic Church

Quoted for truth.

and pplwatching with his "voluntary covenant" bullshit put himself on my "sincere but stupid people" list, sorry.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Quoted for truth.

and pplwatching with his "voluntary covenant" bullshit put himself on my "sincere but stupid people" list, sorry.

Actually, Pplwatching is correct. Marriage in the Catholic Church, (as in many other faiths), is a sacrament, and being so, is a covenant with God. And since no one is forced to follow the Catholic faith, it is also voluntary; however, if in one’s belief in the Catholic Doctrine, one wishes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven upon their physical death, one must adhere to this covenant; including monogamy without divorce. However in reality, few people today actually adhere to their faith, even though they pretend to publically.

Whether Catholic Doctrine is Divine Truth, or just BS, is not the point. The point is, everyone has a right to their opinions and beliefs, including Pplwatching. Attacking people simply because of their opinions and beliefs is what makes this world such a difficult place to live. Stella, I think you of all people would know this; being attacked for no other reason than what you believe life should be isn’t much fun is it?

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Polyamory between consenting adults is one thing. Making polyamorous marriage legal however and normalising it is quite another. I think it'll be a very sad day when people state their marriage vow with something like....

"and forasking all others, keep myself only to him/her, so long as he/she has a high libido and accepts all my depraved perversions as pornography makes me ever more jaded through the years."

I mean seriously?

Plus, the whole point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for kids to be reared in. The chances of that happening in modern western society between two faithful heterosexuals is already pretty slim but start throwing multiple orientations, partners, lovers and casual fucks into the mix and what you have won't be a marriage at all.

And why should it be?

Why broaden the definition of marriage beyond fidelity between two people? Marriage has never been right for everyone and never will be. Stretching its definition to make it a sexual free for all would kill marriage completely.

What about divorces? What about paternity, child support and so on. What about property and inheritance? What about widows/widowers and pensions?

It's a cute thought but all you'll end up with is a lot of rich lawyers.

From a legal point of view, adding polyamory to the marriage contract would modify only the clause defining with whom a spouse may or may not have sex; the rest of the marriage contract would remain the same. As far as paternity and child support, those issues would be decided by the court in the manner they are decided now. A court may assign child support to either the father figure, or the biological father, depending on what is in the best interest of the child.

The only thing polyamory would do is remove the guilt and blame of having sex with someone outside of the marriage or committed relationship.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Actually, Pplwatching is correct. Marriage in the Catholic Church, (as in many other faiths), is a sacrament, and being so, is a covenant with God. And since no one is forced to follow the Catholic faith, it is also voluntary; however, if in one’s belief in the Catholic Doctrine, one wishes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven upon their physical death, one must adhere to this covenant; including monogamy without divorce. However in reality, few people today actually adhere to their faith, even though they pretend to publically.

Whether Catholic Doctrine is Divine Truth, or just BS, is not the point. The point is, everyone has a right to their opinions and beliefs, including Pplwatching. Attacking people simply because of their opinions and beliefs is what makes this world such a difficult place to live. Stella, I think you of all people would know this; being attacked for no other reason than what you believe life should be isn’t much fun is it?

I for one am not attacking the followers nor do I attack God or Jesus. However, I will attack without remorse any church who leads it flock astray. A church who broke their covenant with God and its flock by covering up and protecting priests who molested children and continued to do so within the protection of the church. A church who promotes idolatry. A church that withheld the sacrament from peasants to bring a nobleman in line. The list of atrocities by the catholic church ring load and clear thru history and today.

No sir, I do not mock the poor sheep but I do find the Shepherd wanting. For myself I know I am a sinner but that is between me and God and the church can go fuck itself because the church has very little to do with God. How dare they judge me when their own house is so corrupt?

Now let's fuck

 

[pplwatching]

pplwatching with his "voluntary covenant" bullshit put himself on my "sincere but stupid people" list, sorry.

At least condemn me for my beliefs and faith, rather than for clarifying the perspectives of fidelity and divorce in the Church. I have written about my walk of faith here and about the trials of choosing monogamy and fidelity in my marriage here.

I have no problem being branded 'stupid' for my beliefs, my faith, or my sexual choices. They are my own and I don't expect anyone else to understand or agree with them, although to her credit my wife tries.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

I for one am not attacking the followers nor do I attack God or Jesus. However, I will attack without remorse any church who leads it flock astray. A church who broke their covenant with God and its flock by covering up and protecting priests who molested children and continued to do so within the protection of the church. A church who promotes idolatry. A church that withheld the sacrament from peasants to bring a nobleman in line. The list of atrocities by the catholic church ring load and clear thru history and today.

No sir, I do not mock the poor sheep but I do find the Shepherd wanting. For myself I know I am a sinner but that is between me and God and the church can go fuck itself because the church has very little to do with God. How dare they judge me when their own house is so corrupt?

Now let's fuck

Your original post about the church had been deleted before I signed on, which is fine. We all say things that after we think about it, we would like to take back, and fortunately on Lit, we can take it back. I do however, agree with your opinion of the political Catholic Church as it is today; it is a hypocritical organization with a history of protecting pedophiles, and promoting violence against other religions.

With that said, while I am not a Christian myself, I do have a personal interest in the theology of theism and mysticism that forms the basis of all Christian religious beliefs. Unfortunately today, most churches are run more like a business than a spiritual aggregation.

But as you say; Time to get back the sex talk.

 

[pplwatching]

Marriage in the Catholic Church, (as in many other faiths), is a sacrament, and being so, is a covenant with God.

Allow me to clarify this point based on your interest in theology, even if it seems like splitting hairs. In the Catholic Church a sacrament is an outward sign of God's love for His people. Sacraments themselves are not covenants. In marriage the covenant is made between husband and wife. The terms "for better or for worse", "forsaking all others", etc make the covenant unconditional; The couple mutually agrees that there are no conditions under which the contract becomes invalid. In layman's terms they ask God to validate the contract, which renders it unbreakable.

Unlike any other sacrament, spouses give the sacrament of marriage to each other. The priest is merely a witness (the validation as God's representative). Spouses continue to give and receive the sacrament of marriage every day by their loving (Christ-like) actions towards each other.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Allow me to clarify this point based on your interest in theology, even if it seems like splitting hairs. In the Catholic Church a sacrament is an outward sign of God's love for His people. Sacraments themselves are not covenants. In marriage the covenant is made between husband and wife. The terms "for better or for worse", "forsaking all others", etc make the covenant unconditional; The couple mutually agrees that there are no conditions under which the contract becomes invalid. In layman's terms they ask God to validate the contract, which renders it unbreakable.

Unlike any other sacrament, spouses give the sacrament of marriage to each other. The priest is merely a witness (the validation as God's representative). Spouses continue to give and receive the sacrament of marriage every day by their loving (Christ-like) actions towards each other.

Just curious, but what is your interest in a forum like Fetish & Sexuality Central? I don't think Lit would qualify as anybody's sacrament. Can't quite put my finger on it, but there seems to be an oxymoron here somewhere.

 

[pplwatching]

Just curious, but what is your interest in a forum like Fetish & Sexuality Central? I don't think Lit would qualify as anybody's sacrament. Can't quite put my finger on it, but there seems to be an oxymoron here somewhere.

That is a very complicated question. I'm not a particularly good Catholic and don't follow my faith very closely (the link above explains if you are at all interested.) .

My own failings in faith aside, I have interests and fetishes. Discussing them and reading others experiences helps me understand myself, which helps my wife understand me. For a long time I never brought them up to her, figuring she'd never understand or want to go there. I am deeply humbled that she not only accepts them as a part of who I am but caters to them and encourages them.

There's some gray area with respect to whether or not watching porn violates our marriage covenant with respect to "forsaking all others", but since we enjoy it together and it brings us closer it's not a priority for me to sort out. Writing erotica and discussing sex with other people doesn't have that gray area. I am very careful never to intentionally flirt or seek any emotional or sexual connection with women on the Internet.

In answer to your question, accepting me as I am and loving me not only in spite of but because of whatever faults I may have is Christ like and sacramental. During the years when my wife had no interest in sex, I did my best to accept her for who she was. Perhaps if I had stronger faith I would see that as sacramental, but as it is it was just what I wanted to do because I love her.

 

[Qyron]

<Groan>

The purpose of the coronal ridge is to stimulate a woman's G-spot. Any man who has ever had intercourse with a woman knows that. The whole point of intercourse is to push semen through the cervix and fertilize the egg in the uterus, not to scoop semen out of the vagina. I read the research you quoted until I got to the part about the scientists who did this research using a rubber dick and a plastic pussy with a mixture of cornstarch and water. Yeah, that’s real scientific.

The supposed scientist who did this pseudo study, Professor Gordon Gallup said: "The human penis may enable males to substitute their semen for the semen of their competitors”. Does he not know how a woman gets pregnant? When a man reaches the point of ejaculation, he has a sudden urge to push deep, lodging the head of his penis against the woman’s cervix. (At least men who have a cock big enough to reach a woman’s cervix) With the head of his penis lodged against her cervix, he ejaculates through the cervix, fertilizing the egg inside the uterus. Once the egg is fertilized, the woman is pregnant, and stays pregnant no matter how much semen is scooped out.

But then I am not a brilliant scientist, I just have to muddle through life with common sense and experience.

When you read publications like The New Scientist, apply a little common sense.

Try reading "The Human Sexes" by Desmond Morris.

The man clearly states there that the coronal ridge generates negative pressure during intercourse which helps to pull out of the vagina whatever remains of a previous intercourse there may be.
But to add a little more to the fire: only about 1% of all the spermatozoa present in an ejaculation are viable for reproduction; the majority of them have two or three heads, several tails and other abnormalities. And these are not errors of Nature or the result of sticking your cell phone in your crotch: these are specifically produced cells, created for the sole purpose of killing or retarding the movement of the spermatozoa of other men that may be inside the woman. This can be considered the dawn of biological warfare.

And the actual length of the penis is secondary; it takes no part in giving pleasure to the woman - girth is what matters. It is merely a quick evolutionary response to counter the more sophisticated mechanisms already present: if you can dump your load deeper, it needs to travel less to get to the finish line but if a "shorter" man can produce stronger and more abundant swimmers he wins the race by sheer force of numbers.

There have been studies done on this domain using state of the art medical imaging technology and what I've mentioned before was proven beyond any doubt. Its not debatable any more; these are proven facts. They've got real humans inside a MRI scan machine and recorded how Nature does its work unlike the doctor you've mentioned.

 

[Qyron]

Excuse me if I missed this being mentioned, but I wanted to throw in what health risks multiple partners pose for women. I figured the Mayo Clinic would be reputable enough. It's for cervical cancer and multiple partners, early sex and STD's increase your risk. Cervical cancer can be fatal, but the death rate in declining. It's what we have pap smears for. I remember when I first learned this.....I thought, gee, back in that sexual revolution I lived through in the late 60's when the pill came in, no one mentioned this!!!!

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=risk-factors

Risk factors
By Mayo Clinic staff


These factors may increase your risk of cervical cancer:

Many sexual partners. The greater your number of sexual partners — and the greater your partner's number of sexual partners — the greater your chance of acquiring HPV.
Early sexual activity. Having sex before age 18 increases your risk of HPV.
Other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). If you have other STIs — such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis or HIV/AIDS — the greater your chance is of also having HPV.
A weak immune system. Most women who are infected with HPV never develop cervical cancer. However, if you have an HPV infection and your immune system is weakened by another health condition, you may be more likely to develop cervical cancer.
Cigarette smoking. Smoking and HPV infection may work together to cause cervical cancer.


By the way, Stella, I always enjoy your posts!!

I'm sorry but I must ask this: why is 18 the magical number?

I'm sensible to the rest of what was written but this gets on my nerves. Eighteen is always the magical number regarding the definition of safety when it comes to "early" sexual activity. And this could not be a more obvious manoeuvre to enforce the political and legal definition of majority. In my country, strangely, I can not take my children to a doctor until they are 18; until then they must be seen by a paediatrician. A day makes that much of a difference?

 

[Qyron]

But I wander...

Monogamy, Polyamory, Polyandry, Polygamy... Bah!

Most countries today forget that their laws and traditions are built over the Christian-Judaic principles of monogamy and fidelity. This is so much ingrained that as ceased to be a religious principle to become a social rule and being gregarious, humans tend to settle to a common set of behaviours in order to minimize the risk of conflicts.

STD's don't come into play in my view. Presently, AIDS are getting higher numbers among the heterosexual and married population, at least on my side of the ocean, as well for other sexual related illnesses. Studies point that STD's are more prevalent where proper information and population education lacks, regardless of social status.

Marriage is a social contract between the spouses and the state. This contract imposes several restrictions to ones individual rights and liberties and it is this concept that is wrong, in my view. Sexual and emotional behaviour is something that should be beyond the reach of legal disposition.

Societies change along their existence and according to the external events affecting them. Baby booming, 60's sexual revolution, etc... all played a role to change the early 20th century Victorian ways to the presently more liberal ways. There is a very good book on this: Histories of Sexuality - Antiquity to Sexual Revolution, by Steve Garton. Although it does not verse specifically on this subject.