Printable View
Good advice!Quote:
Originally posted by burns91
And it's one thing if you say going into the relationship that you're going to sleep with other people and you both are fine with it. However, it's quite another to agree you are only going to be with each other and no one else, and then one of them betrays that trust. There is no excuse for cheating. Period. Just fucking break up with the person before you cheat on them!
flesh is born of flesh, spirit is born of spirit.Quote:
Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I don't strive for asexuality to avoid betrayal...It was through betrayal that I came to the realization what sexual desire is---just another form of my mind control. The fact that after not having masturbated for a few days makes it totally impossible for me not to be constantly thinking about sticking my penis is something soft and wet is a pretty clear indication that there is nothing spiritual about it. It's simply the best way to ensure that humans keep reproducing. I think it's more accurate to say, that I want to be in control of my sexual desire and be able to rationally understand why I feel what I feel, rather than let it control me, ignore the reasons behind it, and try to spread my seed to as many fertile cervices as possible.
As humans (male, at least, around the age of sexual peak), we think about sex almost constantly. What a waste of energy. I would prefer to only think about it once I've met and gotten to know someone who is actually worth a serious comittment of time and energy.
i agree that the base sexual urge is a biological one, and nothing more. there is nothing sacred involved in it, in an of itself. and yet, it is the ONLY source of human life.
perhaps you should ponder the fact that asexual organisms are unicellular. they simply divide themselves, and their 'offspring' have the same genes and structure.
animals reproduce sexually. a male and a female both selectively choose a mate based upon what they view as desirable (which seems to be ultimately what is seen to be desireable for the species).
just think of how advanced this concept has become in humans. true, many pregnancies are the result of accidents. of a horny male sticking his member in a receptive female to release bestial tension.
but some people actually choose a sexual partner with care. sex isn't an unconscious, automatic, bestial release. it is a recognition that flesh and 'spirit' are both intertwined. that ultimately it is 'spirit' (or 'mind' for the less imaginative) which differentiates us from the lower animals. which makes beauty, love, loyalty, trust, and HOPE actual possibilities for humans.
when two people DECIDE to have sex, and to do so in a fully conscious manner, i believe that IS sacred...
I suspect that monogamy was settled upon for socially practical reasons, but that all of the romantic ideas regarding that institution built up subsequently, of course with the justifications that can be found in the context of the events which surround the process of Sexual Bonding. Those who are Romantic Minded suppose that the brief but intense period of sexual obsession that characterizes the period of sexual bonding between almost any couple thrown together, well, they suppose that should be permanent... And they go on supposing it no matter how often their experience fails them in this regards.
But, Monogamy may still just be a traditional social convention. A Rule of Property. Let us look at the advantages. In Monogamy we do not have the disquieting event of the most powerful man in the community capturing up all the women and imprisoning them into his own harem. In Africa and the Mid East, where such things are permitted, I suppose it can be a great cause for social unrest. I would think it would be dangerous for a man to completely corner the market on available women. I can't see but that he would eventually be stabbed, stoned or poisoned because of it.
Also, where a man marries many wives, we have a situation where it is difficult to determine the disposition of the Estate at the time of the man's death. This is even difficult in the case of Monogamy, where in some Cultures we have inheritance by Primogeniture, that is, only the oldest sibling, or the oldest male sibling can stand to inherit the Estate... this keeps the state intact. It also contributes to the Concentration of
Wealth. But as much as I fear an over-concentration of Wealth, it worries me when estates must necessarily be carved up into smaller and smaller pieces so that each child of a large family can be provided for. It seems a plan that would lead to a generalized poverty. Now, in England where Primogeniture was the Rule, we had estates that would either stay intact going to the first sons, or estates that would even grow, being merged by marriage. The accumulated wealth was at first a positive thing, but then the degree of private wealth accrued enough political and military power whereby the Sovereign Crown was threatened and then effectively overthrown. England has been in the hands of Private Imperialists ever since, and they are still out doing their damage. Perhaps the best model would be a single married pair that has only two children where the estate would go equally to both. This model would not accumulate wealth, but nor would it recklessly disperse wealth, thinning it down to nothing.
In certain villages in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains we have a clever set of marital traditions and distributions for inhereted property. There it is customary for every brother of a family to retain in common just one wife. the idea is that one wife can probably not reproduce more boys than the mother of the brothers she marries. An estate that has 5 brothers who marry one wife who has 5 sons, well, it comes out reasonably even. Variations between generations can never exceed an acceptable swing. We can see how Monogamy would be disasterous. 5 sons each with his own wife could have 25 children, all who would expect to divy up the same Farm. It simply could not be done.
I've heard that in certain primitive tribes, the men are not permitted to marry until they have achieved some heroic stand within their Community, and even then, the first stage of their 'Marriage' comes in a Ceremony where they are appointed Guardian and Protector of some little pre-adolesant girl, who is to be their Mother In Law. This Man, already in his mid-thirties or early forties, must wait to marry the daughter of some 8 year old girl. Well, such a system guarantees the protection of its females, while assuring that there will probably not be many children, and that the children will not have to wait very long to collect their inheritance. By the time the Old Man gets married, the sexual hunger is mostly dissipated and then he dies. This system also tends toward stabilizing the tribes Population and Distribution of Wealth.
So, traditions of Marriage and Inheretance can be carefully plotted by a Society to insure a certain trajectory in regards to maintenance of Wealth.
I agree, and when it comes to the perpetuation of the human race, sex is very important. However, I disagree that it is anything beyond a simple biological mechanism that tricks us into procreation. The only difference, in my mind, is that with the current form of our brains we are actually able to choose whether or not we want to pursue procreation...provided, of course, we have enough will-power to withstand millions of years of evolutionary instinctive progress.Quote:
Originally posted by Asher
perhaps you should ponder the fact that asexual organisms are unicellular. they simply divide themselves, and their 'offspring' have the same genes and structure.
I see my mind as often going contrary to what my body wants, and vice-versa. I have been able to conquer (for the time being, at least) nicotine addiction, which to me feels similar to sex with someone with whom I have no strong emotional bond.
I think, perhaps, "asexuality" was the wrong word to use.
what you are essentially saying (from what i can gather) is that sex is only useful for perpetuating humanity.Quote:
Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I agree, and when it comes to the perpetuation of the human race, sex is very important. However, I disagree that it is anything beyond a simple biological mechanism that tricks us into procreation. .
the human race is composed of individuals.
do you real-ize that you are perpetuating your own life each and every time you choose to eat, drink, avoid moving buses, take care not to slit your wrists while washing dishes, etc.? truly realize that you are making a choice FOR your individual life, and AGAINST inevitable death?
you must hope to acheive something, find something, grow in a particular way...evolve..
if you look on biological procreation so disdainfully, why haven't you committed suicide yet? again, i say in light of the fact that sex is the ONLY source of human life. without the union of two biological/spiritual entities in a very specific way, life would not continue its evolution.
you speak as if nature needs to 'trick' humanity into perpetuating itself.
is life as a biological/spiritual entity so shameful and empty you view it as a curse which we are all the result of? a cruel cosmic joke nature continually plays?
you choose to live. why? are you being tricked into it? or do you believe you are making a CONSCIOUS decision to instill a deeper meaning into life than it presently possesses?
i am positive the latter is true, or you would have chosen to end it long ago.
life and evolution are inseparably intertwined. the intelligence of physical DNA, and 'spiritual' consciousness.
so i repeat. presently the majority of sex is mostly biological. most children are accidents in the true sense of the word.
but when two people are full conscious of the nature of life. conscious that evolution has given humanity increasingly greater control over our own evolutionary process (bio-cultural evolution), i believe that is the pinnacle of sanctity.
a couple which creates a new human life in hopes they are furthering Life's/Nature's/"God's"/Consciousness' worthwhile evolution are greater to me than all the priests and sages that have ever spread their brainchildren and ideas.
water needs a cup. ideas and consciousness needs a physical vessels.
you cannot separate the water from the cup, and call the one a base trick, and the other worth living for. if you wish to claim that, spill you water on the ground and be done with it.
:D this is not mainly directed at you. your response simply served as a catalyst for a train of thought mostly aimed at myself. because truthfully, most days i view life as a 'trick' as well.
the following passage may be too wishy-washy for you liking, but it sums up my only alternative to suicide quite succinctly. if i ever have children, it will be in this spirit..
(from kahlil gibran's "the prophet")
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable. "
it is a completely arbitrary decision whether to view life as an empty, meaningless joke, or a overflowing, sacred progression, but that arbitrary decision is precisely what defines each individual human, and collectively, humanity as a whole.
peace and love...
Evolution has ensured that every organism desires to spread its genetic material after trying to preserve its own life. Humans are no exception. However, humans have evolved in such a way that allows them to consider this phenomenom and actually choose whether or not they will procreate or be celibate. The fact that humans can actually decide to not procreate is a very important thing. Living does not mean that you SHOULD procreate. Perhaps it is possible that striving to make one's mind one with the universe is enough to justify living. I think it is foolish to base life on procreation since we actually have the choice now.
Kahlil Gibran always has something useful to say on every subject. Gotta' love him. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Asher
what you are essentially saying (from what i can gather) is that sex is only useful for perpetuating humanity.
the human race is composed of individuals.
do you real-ize that you are perpetuating your own life each and every time you choose to eat, drink, avoid moving buses, take care not to slit your wrists while washing dishes, etc.? truly realize that you are making a choice FOR your individual life, and AGAINST inevitable death?
you must hope to acheive something, find something, grow in a particular way...evolve..
if you look on biological procreation so disdainfully, why haven't you committed suicide yet? again, i say in light of the fact that sex is the ONLY source of human life. without the union of two biological/spiritual entities in a very specific way, life would not continue its evolution.
you speak as if nature needs to 'trick' humanity into perpetuating itself.
is life as a biological/spiritual entity so shameful and empty you view it as a curse which we are all the result of? a cruel cosmic joke nature continually plays?
you choose to live. why? are you being tricked into it? or do you believe you are making a CONSCIOUS decision to instill a deeper meaning into life than it presently possesses?
i am positive the latter is true, or you would have chosen to end it long ago.
life and evolution are inseparably intertwined. the intelligence of physical DNA, and 'spiritual' consciousness.
so i repeat. presently the majority of sex is mostly biological. most children are accidents in the true sense of the word.
but when two people are full conscious of the nature of life. conscious that evolution has given humanity increasingly greater control over our own evolutionary process (bio-cultural evolution), i believe that is the pinnacle of sanctity.
a couple which creates a new human life in hopes they are furthering Life's/Nature's/"God's"/Consciousness' worthwhile evolution are greater to me than all the priests and sages that have ever spread their brainchildren and ideas.
water needs a cup. ideas and consciousness needs a physical vessels.
you cannot separate the water from the cup, and call the one a base trick, and the other worth living for. if you wish to claim that, spill you water on the ground and be done with it.
:D this is not mainly directed at you. your response simply served as a catalyst for a train of thought mostly aimed at myself. because truthfully, most days i view life as a 'trick' as well.
the following passage may be too wishy-washy for you liking, but it sums up my only alternative to suicide quite succinctly. if i ever have children, it will be in this spirit..
(from kahlil gibran's "the prophet")
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable. "
it is a completely arbitrary decision whether to view life as an empty, meaningless joke, or a overflowing, sacred progression, but that arbitrary decision is precisely what defines each individual human, and collectively, humanity as a whole.
peace and love...
you would unify your 'mind' with the 'universe'?Quote:
Originally posted by mongreloctopus
Evolution has ensured that every organism desires to spread its genetic material after trying to preserve its own life. Humans are no exception. However, humans have evolved in such a way that allows them to consider this phenomenom and actually choose whether or not they will procreate or be celibate. The fact that humans can actually decide to not procreate is a very important thing. Living does not mean that you SHOULD procreate. Perhaps it is possible that striving to make one's mind one with the universe is enough to justify living. I think it is foolish to base life on procreation since we actually have the choice now.
ponder what the term universe means. it is primarily, and mostly chaotic, and unconscious.
life is the EXCEPTION in the entire universe. from the single celled organism to plants, to animals, to you and i, and our parents.
to all appearances 'the universe' and 'life' are virtually opposites of one another. one is primarily chaotic, unconscious, and purposeless. the other is ordered, conscious, and purposeful (to evolve life into even more complex forms).
why should life have evolved into the myriad of life upon our exceptional rock ,hurtling through space, teeming with billions upon billions of exceptions?
i don't know, and neither do you. but for whatever reasons, life's fundamental quality is a very specific tendecy towards ever greater manifestations of order, relation, consciousness, interelation, etc.
its sole purpose is to exist IN SPITE OF the universe.
the universe tends towards entrophy. life is the exception. it manages to harness the aimless energy of a burning mass light years away, and stave off its return to chaos.
how do you figure you can unify your mind (which is the highest manifestion of life and biological evolution) with the cold, unconscious universe? you might as well try to unify yourself with a rock.
the mind is conscious. the only way it can unify itself with the chaotic universe is to become chaotic itself, to share in the nature of that greater part of the universe which is in opposition to the basic principle of life.
that is my only point. if your only justification of life is to channel chaos into the wonderfully, intricately, exceptional created conduit of life with which you relate to me this instant (your mind), i suspect you will only frustrate yourself. it seems impossible.
until you die, your brain decays, and your consciousness dissipates into cold, lifeless space.
if rejection of all the qualities which life, evolution, and the pro-creative principle have endowed you with is your only 'justification' of life, you strike me as a strange contradiction.
i suspect you truly wish to unify your mind with the CONSCIOUS aspect of the universe. well then, it seems LIFE is your only destination.
choose one or the other. conscious life, or unconscious chaos.
i am not saying you must procreate yourself in order to accept the principle of procreation. personally, i do not intend to choose to procreate. if i ever was at a stage in my life where raising children was viable and beneficial for myself, and said children, i would adopt some of the millions of destitute orphans suffering as we speak.
you may never choose to have children. so be it. the SOLE purpose of an INDIVIDUAL life is not to have children. but to shit on the procreative principle generally and wholly is to shit upon your own existence, including the mind with which you choose to pursue unity with the universe, as opposed to unity with conscious life.
thanks for your comments. it has been very enlightening to discuss this topic with you. it has led me down many a benefical, clarifying path of thought (upon which my mind has tread). so many in fact, that i would only frustrate myself and you if i tried to convey all of them through the medium of writing.
i believe i understand where you are coming from, my human sibling. ultimately it is up to you to decide how you will relate to the universe. how you define the universe, and life, and the relation between the two.
but IMHO, you are wandering down empty, meaningless paths which i have spent most of my life wandering. eventually they led me to a dead end.
literally. they confronted me with death. death is only the human conception of that part of the universe which is opposed to life after all. the majority of the universe. we will all find our way there one day regardless. eventually the path of life will fall away beneath our feet, and we will be forced to plunge headfirst into that chasm of annihilation.
do you hope to somehow bypass that annihilation by unifying your mind with 'the universe"? if so, choose which aspect. life or death. consciousness, or unconsciousness.
if annihilation and a return to the predominant chaos is your desire, by all means proceed. quit wandering the pathways of the living as a bitter victim of life. if life is a burden, it is a burden you willfully choose each day.
if you must justify life, life must be a pathetic entity indeed.
however, if you wish to unify yourself with the living, conscious, paradoxical aspect of the universe, first embrace your physical existence. to do otherwise is to live in constant contradiction.
i am aware i might sound like an arrogant, presumptuous know-it-all. hopefuly you do not take my words in that spirit.
i'm just a fellow product of life brother, doing the best i can to make sense of it all. i simply wish to aid the realization that you cannot accept bits and pieces of the principle of life. you cannot separate mind and body.
a useful exercise i sometimes use to determine the implications of my opinions and perspectives is to imagine i was the only person alive, or that everyone thought exactly as i.
if everyone took your negative view on biological procreation, consider the consequences. imagine it is you and a single female on a desert island :D (cliched i know). you are the only humans left. the last two exceptional products of billlions of years worth of Life's evolution. the last conscious links in the chain. each possessing body, and conscious mind within your own respective, inseparable units.
would you deny your biological urge to procreate simply to prove your mind is in control of your body? would you go sit off by yourself and try to join your mind to the universe, knowing you would be one of the last humans ever to live? would all the striving of life eventually culmintate in you pussying out of the uncertain progression of evolution, and conceding defeat to chaos?
if so, don't try ot make it sound like something other than it is. don't make it sound noble or higher than base, pathetic, biological animalhood.
if however, you chose to unify your mind with the conscious aspect of the universe, you would choose to procreate with the woman. you would admit that you feel there is some quality of the mind which is worth living for. and even knowing mind must neccessarily be co-dependent with a physical body that pisses, shits, and fucks, you would allow a new generation to have the chance to continue evolution's refining process. you wouldn't be conquered by the instinctual aspect of life. you would be its highest manifestion. life's most conscious decision in the history of all life. you would see the highest form of life for all it is, 'good' and 'bad' alike, and choose to allow evolution to continue its mysterious striving.
:) again, i only say this because i know a part of you agrees. and the part that agrees must neccessarily one day accept the pro-creative principle, if it would accept life, and its resulting consciousness.
but now i really must bow out of this discussion, unless you wish to take a different stance. i have said all i can say. in the end, you choose whether life is worth it or not. but it would be sad to see yet another person live out a tortured, faithless, hopeless, existence, longing only for eternal union with lifeless oblivion.
i cannot resist quoting another passage from kahlil gibran. it is on love, but it is as much about life. relation, life, love, consciousness, gradual progression and evolution through subtle interplay between similar components, etc are all connected.
love is only the subjective human representation of the relating principle which defines life, and evolution.
when (if) you read it, you might find the line "become sacred bread for god's sacred feast' to support your nihilistic outlook. it can be taken that way.
but one can also see that all food becomes part of the organism which consumes it. they both co-exist. if you offer yourself as a willing vessel of Life, i am positive you will find the union you are searching. but it is not a static union, a finality. rather, it is participating fully in life. body, mind, and spirit.
if you do not feel you should procreate during your life, by all means do not. if you wish to look in disdain on those who procreate only as an extension of the animal instinct within them, and view them as inferior, and animals, do so.
but if you wish to sneer at those who consciously and willfully choose to use the act of procreation as a means to further the evolution of Life It Self, i have no respect for you. "pass out on love's threshing floor' and spare us your pitiful thrashing.
(heh, i use such strong words to rouse you to a clearcut decision. a part of you is angry with me for writing these words. examine WHY you resent them...)
"Then said Almitra, "Speak to us of Love."
And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said:
When love beckons to you follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.
For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.
Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.
All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.
But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.
When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips. "
namaste.
in the end, if you would wish to be one with the entire universe, you must be one with both chaos and order. death and life.
i seem to have taken a stance FOR conscious life, and AGAINST chaotic death. i did this to constrast the two. you seem to be for annihilation, and so i seemed to be for life.
yet the uni-verse must neccessarily be singular. you cannot have it to yourself, and i cannot have it to myself.
if you wish to be one with the universe, you must be one with BOTH life and death. body and mind. procreation and inevitable destruction.
please take that as the only meaningful statement i have uttered here. all the rest is elaboration of that.
in the end, to make any choice is to be a pawn. if you 'strive' to unify yourself with 'the universe' you cannot truly desire union with the ENTIRE universe, only the part(s) you deem worthy of your limited human mind.
to simply be is to accept all choices...that is the place where life and death are joined. the deathless moment. that place is where the union you desire waits...
namaste
*laughs* i just started to re-read my last post, and i didn't bother finishing it, even though i wrote it :DQuote:
Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I think it is foolish to base life on procreation since we actually have the choice now.
i should have just merely quoted the above sentence the first time. and if you cannot see the obvious illogical contradiction contained therein, all my unedited drivel is ineffectual.
are you in favour of every human alive today abandoning the procreative urge, acheiving (or only trying to acheive) union with that part of the universe contrary to biological life and brain systems, and dying out within a hundred years?
Quote:
Originally posted by Asher
are you in favour of every human alive today abandoning the procreative urge, acheiving (or only trying to acheive) union with that part of the universe contrary to biological life and brain systems, and dying out within a hundred years?
Well, it doesn't really matter to me. The possibility of that happening is laughably remote, anyway. As for me, I find great value and, ultimately, joy in denying myself certain things that my body tries to get me to do. It's a lot like beating nicotine addiction. Every time I see somebody smoking a cigarette I am filled with the kind of happiness that no nicotine-buzz could ever give me. But hey, it's all a matter of personal choice, and when the time is right I'm sure I'll spawn my own set of genetically similar monsters to go about and argue philosophy in internet forums, because it's not about rebeling against the existence or continued existence of humanity, but rather being in control of my body and mind that I am interested in.
fair enough. and i hope you at least indulged in an actual laugh regarding the hypothetical situation.. :wink:Quote:
Originally posted by mongreloctopus
Well, it doesn't really matter to me. The possibility of that happening is laughably remote, anyway. As for me, I find great value and, ultimately, joy in denying myself certain things that my body tries to get me to do. It's a lot like beating nicotine addiction. Every time I see somebody smoking a cigarette I am filled with the kind of happiness that no nicotine-buzz could ever give me. But hey, it's all a matter of personal choice, and when the time is right I'm sure I'll spawn my own set of genetically similar monsters to go about and argue philosophy in internet forums, because it's not about rebeling against the existence or continued existence of humanity, but rather being in control of my body and mind that I am interested in.
Matthew 5:27-28
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Nobody was suggesting that anyone else commit adultury. This thread is NOT about adultury. It is about monogamy. Those are clearly not the same things!Quote:
Originally posted by bochen4
Matthew 5:27-28
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
I consider that our present sufferings are not worthy being compared with the glory that will be revealed in us.
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I cry to you my Lord, my rock! Do not be deaf to me, for if you are silent, I shall go down to the pit like the rest. Hear my voice raised in petition as I cry to you for help, as I raise my hands, my
Lord, toward your holy of holies.
The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
Go now Sons of God. Fulfill your Destiny!
Praise the Lord! Amen!
Stuff it, A-hole.
I was waiting for someone to say thatQuote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Stuff it, A-hole.
Well, someone had to do it....
I suspect that monogamy was settled upon for socially practical reasons, but that all of the romantic ideas regarding that institution built up subsequently, of course with the justifications that can be found in the context of the events which surround the process of Sexual Bonding. Those who are Romantic Minded suppose that the brief but intense period of sexual obsession that characterizes the period of sexual bonding between almost any couple thrown together, well, they suppose that should be permanent... And they go on supposing it no matter how often their experience fails them in this regards.
But, Monogamy may still just be a traditional social convention. A Rule of Property. Let us look at the advantages. In Monogamy we do not have the disquieting event of the most powerful man in the community capturing up all the women and imprisoning them into his own harem. In Africa and the Mid East, where such things are permitted, I suppose it can be a great cause for social unrest. I would think it would be dangerous for a man to completely corner the market on available women. I can't see but that he would eventually be stabbed, stoned or poisoned because of it.
Also, where a man marries many wives, we have a situation where it is difficult to determine the disposition of the Estate at the time of the man's death. This is even difficult in the case of Monogamy, where in some Cultures we have inheritance by Primogeniture, that is, only the oldest sibling, or the oldest male sibling can stand to inherit the Estate... this keeps the state intact. It also contributes to the Concentration of
Wealth. But as much as I fear an over-concentration of Wealth, it worries me when estates must necessarily be carved up into smaller and smaller pieces so that each child of a large family can be provided for. It seems a plan that would lead to a generalized poverty. Now, in England where Primogeniture was the Rule, we had estates that would either stay intact going to the first sons, or estates that would even grow, being merged by marriage. The accumulated wealth was at first a positive thing, but then the degree of private wealth accrued enough political and military power whereby the Sovereign Crown was threatened and then effectively overthrown. England has been in the hands of Private Imperialists ever since, and they are still out doing their damage. Perhaps the best model would be a single married pair that has only two children where the estate would go equally to both. This model would not accumulate wealth, but nor would it recklessly disperse wealth, thinning it down to nothing.
In certain villages in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains we have a clever set of marital traditions and distributions for inhereted property. There it is customary for every brother of a family to retain in common just one wife. the idea is that one wife can probably not reproduce more boys than the mother of the brothers she marries. An estate that has 5 brothers who marry one wife who has 5 sons, well, it comes out reasonably even. Variations between generations can never exceed an acceptable swing. We can see how Monogamy would be disasterous. 5 sons each with his own wife could have 25 children, all who would expect to divy up the same Farm. It simply could not be done.
I've heard that in certain primitive tribes, the men are not permitted to marry until they have achieved some heroic stand within their Community, and even then, the first stage of their 'Marriage' comes in a Ceremony where they are appointed Guardian and Protector of some little pre-adolesant girl, who is to be their Mother In Law. This Man, already in his mid-thirties or early forties, must wait to marry the daughter of some 8 year old girl. Well, such a system guarantees the protection of its females, while assuring that there will probably not be many children, and that the children will not have to wait very long to collect their inheritance. By the time the Old Man gets married, the sexual hunger is mostly dissipated and then he dies. This system also tends toward stabilizing the tribes Population and Distribution of Wealth.
So, traditions of Marriage and Inheretance can be carefully plotted by a Society to insure a certain trajectory in regards to maintenance of Wealth.
Well, the problem, Gwen, is when one chooses to talk about just one tip of a Polarity. It raises the question that the Polarity may just be one insubstantial point out in empty space, but that the Larger Truth is not so far out on the extreme.Quote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Nobody was suggesting that anyone else commit adultury. This thread is NOT about adultury. It is about monogamy. Those are clearly not the same things!
Now, I am even a very Religious and Spiritual Man, and I bulk at Monogamy. I would rather be bound by absolute Celibacy then be told that I must confine all of my sexual realtions to just one Dark Hole.
Just think about it. Look at the Pornographic Magazine Industry -- they put out pornographic Magazines... new ones every month. Well, if there was any Truth to Monogamy, then why would any Pervert ever require more than one porno Magazine?
As soon as one allows Sexuality at all then one must allow for Variation. Why tell us that we can have all the Sex one wants as long as it is with the Same Ol Ageing Same Ol' ... you know, at a certain point there is no French Maid Uniform, or Catholic School Girl Dress that can help in making the ten-thousandth sexual experience just like the first time.
yes, I understand that couples should stay together 'for the sake of the children'. and yes I understand that with Marriage the way it is, that the Wife should not come home dumping other men's children on the man that was stupid enough to marry her. But that being said, why don't these married couple just leave each other alone. the Wife can get birth control and go out, and Daddy can do what he likes. But "Monogamy", yes, it is interesting in theory, but in practice, after the thousandth time, its "been there done that".
Married couples should have the Wisdom to know to leave their partner alone.
I understand your opinion, Leo, I was only trying to say that monogamy, not adultury, was the subject of this thread. I mean, if you are married and you want to be with someone else for awhile, why not just divorce? It's a pretty easy process, and even children who are the products of divorce are really pretty stable individuals. I don't think that there is any excuse for adultury, unless it is agreed upon by both partners, or one person leaves the other. Why stay married?Quote:
Originally posted by Leo Volont
Well, the problem, Gwen, is when one chooses to talk about just one tip of a Polarity. It raises the question that the Polarity may just be one insubstantial point out in empty space, but that the Larger Truth is not so far out on the extreme.
Now, I am even a very Religious and Spiritual Man, and I bulk at Monogamy. I would rather be bound by absolute Celibacy then be told that I must confine all of my sexual realtions to just one Dark Hole.
Just think about it. Look at the Pornographic Magazine Industry -- they put out pornographic Magazines... new ones every month. Well, if there was any Truth to Monogamy, then why would any Pervert ever require more than one porno Magazine?
As soon as one allows Sexuality at all then one must allow for Variation. Why tell us that we can have all the Sex one wants as long as it is with the Same Ol Ageing Same Ol' ... you know, at a certain point there is no French Maid Uniform, or Catholic School Girl Dress that can help in making the ten-thousandth sexual experience just like the first time.
yes, I understand that couples should stay together 'for the sake of the children'. and yes I understand that with Marriage the way it is, that the Wife should not come home dumping other men's children on the man that was stupid enough to marry her. But that being said, why don't these married couple just leave each other alone. the Wife can get birth control and go out, and Daddy can do what he likes. But "Monogamy", yes, it is interesting in theory, but in practice, after the thousandth time, its "been there done that".
Married couples should have the Wisdom to know to leave their partner alone.
monogamy is different than marriage isn't it?
Isn't marriage supposed to be monogamous?
depends on your religous and whatnots beliefs
I'd say marriage is a form of monogamous relationships
but like Sorti said, there are religions and even marriages that have an "understanding" and therefore aren't monogamous
like those ones where one of them is gay, but they want to be "married" to a member of the opposite sex to keep their parents happy, but still go out and have homosexual sex, while the spouse is like "???" or like "oh it's ok, I do that too"
Yes, but most marriages are not marriages that have "understandings". There are a lot that are like this, I agree, but the vast majority are marriages between people who are of the opinion that their spouse should be with them and only them. I mean, without an understanding, it would not be fair to the other spouse involved if you were unmanogomous.Quote:
Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
I'd say marriage is a form of monogamous relationships
but like Sorti said, there are religions and even marriages that have an "understanding" and therefore aren't monogamous
like those ones where one of them is gay, but they want to be "married" to a member of the opposite sex to keep their parents happy, but still go out and have homosexual sex, while the spouse is like "???" or like "oh it's ok, I do that too"