Monogamy is unrealistic?

Laplandman

I have a friend who just got married recently. She was 23, which I thought was a young age to get married in this day and age. I feel that monogamy is an unrealistic expectation for most people these days (for young people in Ireland anywho). Does anyone agree? Is marriage a bit of a joke?

Crucifix

I don't really give a monkey's about marriage, but I don't think monogamy is an unrealistic expectation.

Well if she was going out with the guy for more than three years!then i can see them sticking it out! Is some one a little jaded?

bonkey

Laplandman wrote:

I feel that monogamy is an unrealistic expectation for most people these days (for young people in Ireland anywho). Does anyone agree?

I'd agree that it is currently an unrealistic expectation for most people these days (and always has been). That doesn't make it an unreasonable expectation to hold.

Is marriage a bit of a joke?

It is a joke for those who treat it like one.

Deleted User wrote:

Well if she was going out with the guy for more than three years!then i can see them sticking it out!

I think three years is a ludicrously short period of time on which to base a decision that notionally is about the rest of your life.

I'm not saying it can't be done in three years....just that it can't be done reliably in that timeframe.

GuanYin

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316846

Just so we all have the same arguments to rehash indefinitely if we are gonna start this debate again.

seamus

Laplandman wrote:

I feel that monogamy is an unrealistic expectation for most people these days (for young people in Ireland anywho).

It's an unrealistic expectation in that you cannot demand or expect everyone to monogamous just because you'd like them to be. It's not an unrealistic expectation of your partner however.

The bulk of people still want monogamy from their partner (whether or not they practice it themselves), so the onus is on you to declare your feelings if you have no desire to be monogamous.

Is marriage a bit of a joke?

The purpose of marriage evolves with society. It's been around for a long, long time and has somehow managed to survive, so any notions of it being antiquated or ridiculous usually come from those who have no experience of marriage, save what they've seen of their parents' generation.
Within the last twenty years we've seen marriage evolve from a religious, sentimental affair, into a more civil affair. Few people get married these days because "It's the right thing to do", or because they don't believe in sex outside of marriage.
The usual thing is to spend some time as partners, essentially as a married couple, before affirming their happiness that "Yes, this is the way I'd like it to stay" and to also give themselves some legal ties.

The ceremony is still all sentimentality, but then you can have whatever ceremony she likes. The ceremony is for the girl. It's has very little to do with actually getting married, and everything to do with the girl being the centre of attention and dressed up for a whole day. If it were up to men, you'd sign a piece of paper, mail it off, and then go out on the piss when the cert arrives in the post.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Why buy a book when you can go to the library?

bonkey

seamus wrote:

The bulk of people still want monogamy from their partner (whether or not they practice it themselves),

I always find it funny when people expect their partners to be monogamous, but can offer any number of justifications why they themselves shouldn't be expected to be so!

sean_keevey wrote:

Why buy a book when you can go to the library?

Because sometimes you want the book for yourself, don't want to return it in two weeks, and don't want other people borrowing it????

Crazy, I know.

jc

rsynnott

There's no problem with monogamy, but marrying that young is stark raving mad, imo.

hepcat

Monogamy is not unrealistic - it is perfectly normal. Does OP know what monogamy means, as they seem to be confusing it with "til death do us part" ideology behind marriage.? Serial monogamy is about the norm nowadays, and marriage is still a very popular institution. Monogamistic relationships or marriages that last a lifetime would seem to be on the decline, but that does not mean thye do not happen.

lazydaisy

Does anyone think there is any reasoning behind the theory that affairs might actually help a marriage stay together for life?

rsynnott

lazydaisy wrote:

Does anyone think there is any reasoning behind the theory that affairs might actually help a marriage stay together for life?

That sounds rather like something come up with by a panel of men going through their midlife crises, to be honest.

krd

I'm not familar with that theory. Iluminate us.

ronbyrne2005

men generally have more trouble remaining monogomous for innate biological reasons.i'd say it gets boring on the sexual side after 10 20 30 years of the same person,mens testosterone is driving them to procreate/have sex daily throughout most of his life,i dont think women have the same sexual needs/desires as men.
open relationships dont work because of jealousy/insecurity,but if a couple could have other sexual partners without the jealousy/insecurity thing then i think a marriage could be happier/long lasting if the married couple are compatiable on most levels.
americans tend to get married very young and theres a 50% divorce rate there so any one considering commiting to marriage should give it a good few years and be at least 27 before diving in

Nightwish

I'm a firm believer in marriage as along as both parties don't enter into marriage on a whim or without much thought or consideration. I was engaged when I was a teenager and was going to get married as soon as I got my degree however we split a few months back, so I'm glad I didnt jump straight into marriage as soon as I left school ( as 2 girls in my year did)

Nightwish

I'm a firm believer in marriage as along as both parties don't enter into marriage on a whim or without much thought or consideration. I was engaged when I was a teenager and was going to get married as soon as I got my degree however we split a few months back, so I'm glad I didnt jump straight into marriage as soon as I left school ( as 2 girls in my year did)

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Does anyone think there is any reasoning behind the theory that affairs might actually help a marriage stay together for life?

Do you mean that it is natural? That couples should be encouraged to cheat on one another to discover how much they love eachother?

I have heard that couples are a lot less happy with one another if one or both have cheated and continue their relationship. But there are exceptions too, but I think they're few. Not sure.

Riamfada

Just got in now. Infedelity is the cause of distress and mistrust and it seems to be growing in popularity due to popular culture. It seems to me unatural as it goes against all emotions with regards to love and is , as I have said, a spawn of society.


RE:Sex and The City / Friends ect ect Glorifing Infedelity

lazydaisy

Vangelis wrote:

Do you mean that it is natural? That couples should be encouraged to cheat on one another to discover how much they love eachother?

I have heard that couples are a lot less happy with one another if one or both have cheated and continue their relationship. But there are exceptions too, but I think they're few. Not sure.

Vangelis - if you go down the nature vs. nurture argument then that is a surefire way to rehash the old thread.

What do people consider non monogamous- does porn count, phone sex, oral with someone else? What about this new up and coming phrase "emotional infidelity."

This can of worms is opening up all over again. It wasnt very productive the first time around and no one could agree on what the term meant.

Here is an interesting quote from British psychoanalyist Adam Phillips:

Infidelity is such a problem because we take monogamy
for granted; we treat it as a norm. Perhaps we should
take infidelity for granted, assume it with unharrassed
ease. Then we would be able to think about monogamy.

Vangelis

What do people consider non monogamous- does porn count, phone sex, oral with someone else? What about this new up and coming phrase "emotional infidelity."

When did emotional infidelity come into the picture? What does it mean?

Infidelity is such a problem because we take monogamy
for granted; we treat it as a norm. Perhaps we should
take infidelity for granted, assume it with unharrassed
ease. Then we would be able to think about monogamy.

I can only agree. If people would only wholeheartedly implement this thought into their lives.

lazydaisy

This definition is exerpeted from a link which I provide also. It is from a dictionary of relationship terms. There are many articles on in it if you want to do more in depth research.

emotional infidelity:

1. Falling in love with another person besides the person or persons with whom one is in a committed love relationship when doing so is contrary to the expectations of the relationship or detracts from emotional investment in the relationship.

2. Diverting to others or to another attentions that one should be giving to one's partner or partners, e.g. flirting with others but not with one's spouse.

Comment: Traditional ideas of infidelity focus exclusively upon sexual relations; and chaste love for another outside of one's institutionally framed marriage has a long tradition of being celebrated. However, the idea of emotional infidelity naturally arises where there is a convergence of sexual exclusivity and affectional ties as the heart and rule of committed love relationships.

The idea of emotional infidelity lends itself easily to a zero-sum view of love, whereby it is thought that the supply of love is exhaustible. For more, see comments under "in love" (q.v.).

See also adultery, alienation of affections, comarital, double adultery, emotional cheating, emotional fidelity, extramarital friendship, feel betrayed, free affection, heart-swapping, imaginative split triangle, inconstancy, infidelity, male-female frienship, peccadillo, polyrelationship, soul mate, unfaithfulness, zero-sum view of love.

http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/relationshipsE.html#E

GuanYin

Modern western society could be viewed to be the main reason for infidelity.

Strange as it may sound, the trend in western society to favour career over family may be seen to contribute.

That and the fact that the media practically glamourises it plays a large role.

lazydaisy

I can see how that would be true for women.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

I can see how that would be true for women.

Just as true for men.

lazydaisy

For men? Universally or where? Do you mean men in Ireland, Europe, the US?

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

For men? Universally or where? Do you mean men in Ireland, Europe, the US?

I believe the term "western society" is quite visible in the post.

First line, second and third words.

lazydaisy

So before modern times western men were faithful? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughter.

Media glamourises it? Examples please.

Zombrex

Didn't we have this exact same discussion like a month ago ....

lazydaisy

Yes. Its called madness - trying to get a different result from the same action.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

So before modern times western men were faithful? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughter.

Media glamourises it? Examples please.

Sex in the City.

Not sure if it glamourises non-monogamous relationships, but it certainly glamourises the 'right' to have as many partners as you like, at any time, anywhere. "Sexual liberalisation."

Could sexual liberalisation have something to do with it?

Son Goku

Vangelis wrote:

Sex in the City.

Not sure if it glamourises non-monogamous relationships, but it certainly glamourises the 'right' to have as many partners as you like, at any time, anywhere. "Sexual liberalisation."

Could sexual liberalisation have something to do with it?

Does it really glamorise it though or does it just depict it?
Equivalently, do "happy family" movies glamorise marriage?

lazydaisy

Vangelis wrote:

Sex in the City.

Not sure if it glamourises non-monogamous relationships, but it certainly glamourises the 'right' to have as many partners as you like, at any time, anywhere. "Sexual liberalisation."

Could sexual liberalisation have something to do with it?

Maybe so, but even in Sex and the City those who are unfaithful, meaning have a partner but screw around behind their back deceitfully, are punished for it, somehow.

Multiple sex partners, yes, definitely glamourised, but lying to the one you've made a commitment to - though shalt suffer!!!!!!

Film by its nature glamourises. The key to insight into the agenda of an story, is to look at the consequences for the actions. Are they rewarded or punished?

But frankly, I dont know how much this has to do with infidelity being on the rise. It seems opportunity is far stronger influence. Or maybe we've all just gotten hornier and more prone to boredom. ?

Zombrex

I said it before the last time this was discussed, so i might as well say it again, but I think contraception has had a big role to play in infidenlity.

It is much easier to cheat sexually on your partner if there is no physical consequences to that action. It is also much easier to link sex purely with pleasure if it does not result in a child.

As for Sex and the City, I think it glamourises consequence-less sex, not that this is necessarily a bad thing. But I think it would be a bit more realistic if 1 in 10 episodes Samantha couldn't have sex because she was taking treatment for herpes.

Nevyn

Miranda got clamida in season 4 and had more tests and had to not have sex and take meds and ring up all the other people she may have give it to

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

Miranda got clamida in season 4 and had more tests and had to not have sex and take meds and ring up all the other people she may have give it to

Missed that one ... not that I watch it or anything ... ahem ... [manly cough]

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

great contribution Diane - edit, damnit Wicknight!

lazydaisy

Thaedydal wrote:

Miranda got clamida in season 4 and had more tests and had to not have sex and take meds and ring up all the other people she may have give it to

Didnt she also lose an ovary?

Samantha got breast cancer.

Charlotte miscarried and had problems conceiving.

Did anything happen to Carrie? Aside from her own narcissitic self punishments and Im sorry ,very bad fashion choices?

Laguna

I think monogamy is an unrealistic ideal for the people out there who know they're not naturally monogamistic (is that even a word?!), however I believe some people out there are truly capable of monogamy.

I for instance (believe this or not) would never cheat on a partner/girlfriend, I just couldn't do it. Before people deride me for taking the moral high ground, I honestly couldn't betray the girls (whom I would love - I wouldn't be with her otherwise) trust in me and our relationship. Sad thing is, when this sort of attitude comes from a man, he's labelled gay/weak/spineless/henpecked by his male peers, as if every man has to conform to the alpha male guidebook...

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

So before modern times western men were faithful? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughter.

Well it depends on what your perspective of modern is.
When I say modern society, I'd tend to mean the last 2-3000 years or so.

Media glamourises it? Examples please.

Choose from any number of soap operas, movies, books and celebrity gossip shows.

lazydaisy

Im asking you to choose. You said it, you choose.

By modern you mean, the years that follow AD. Does anyone else think thats modern ot just you?

Laguna

lazydaisy wrote:

So before modern times western men were faithful? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughter.

So it's only men who cheat?... one of 'those' are we?.

lazydaisy

Good lord no.

Who are one of "those"?

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Im asking you to choose. You said it, you choose.

Only one? Ok then, Sunset beach

By modern you mean, the years that follow AD. Does anyone else think thats modern ot just you?

that should have been 2-300, my bad.