monogamy...

an aquaintance of mine posted this in their blog, and i found it pretty well said (i agree completely).

the main source of my incredulity with marriage is the crucial phrase "til death do us part". hell, i've died a hundred times in a single day.

so, here it is.

"i'm beginning to realize how monogomy has been constructed since biblical times
to be nothing more than a means to convey ownership over another living creature ,
to feel pride in doing so , in having something "special" that no one else can have .

it is a means by which to create a feeling of betterment over others . monogomy
is a game of prize , and is entirely egocentric . the idea that one person should ,
or even could , love only one other person for the entirety of their life seems
absolutely unnatural to me . it is only natural that humans will love many times ,
love many people , even all at the same time , because whether or not we are able
to accept it.
everything in this universe changes constantly . why should this
particular subject bare any differences ? if people cannot be ok with this idea
then the ideal of the human race becoming "one [worldly] tribal nation" can never
come to exist .

to place value on one person over another is an act of segregation .
segregation , as i've mentioned in the past [as have the ranks of many others] ,
is well known to be a form of violence . in this , i propose that monogomy is little
if nothing more than a form of violence which has been deemed socially acceptable
due to it's longstanding assocations with what is "right" . when in truth
we can all see the blatantly negative associations which become all too clear
within the context of nearly all monogomous relationships . jealousy first and
foremost . secondly , resentment . all the things that get built up in our heads
when one side of the partnership decides it's not ok for the other side to do
something in particular , whatever it may be . these situations are classic
examples of jealousy and resentment . jealousy from the side of the restrictor .
resentment from the side of the restricted . it is no wonder that after storing
these things up for so long at a time that they eventually blow up into
arguments about things that are completely irrelevant as a guise for the real
issues .
the jealousy/resentment issue also brings other negative things about .
such as dishonesty , fear , and paranoia . one will start sneaking around behind
the other and hiding things from them . we can easily see what happens when
things start happening in this vein .
dependance is yet another negative state
of being that becomes all too relevant . the two people involved will grow to feel
dependant on one another , valuing them over others and thus creating a competitive
nature within the relationship . so when one of the two wants to spend some of their
time elsewhere , a feeling of resentment [once again] arises . all of these things
just feed into a cycle which does nothing but form negative associations between
us . these are all products of the social
construct we know as monogomy . without it there is a possibilty that the
relationships we form with eachother can be much stronger and free flowing than
how they are now . we can come to truly love everyone and rid ourselves of this
diseased thought that we can't do or have absolutely everything we want .

some would say a child needs two parents , a mother and a father , to grow
up in a healthy environment . two people who love and care for eachother
deeply . however this is only something we believe is true because of how
thickly fabricated the illusion is . i feel that if a child was raised by
a community of people , not even necessarily a formally constructed one ,
to believe that it was normal to have been done so , then that child will have an
increased ability to love many individuals for many different reasons .
mainly being that it teaches the child to love everybody as if they were
their parents , and to treat them with the same respect . along with the
love and respect the child would feel for others , the child would have an
increased intake of these same things being that they will be coming from
so many different sources and frequently at that . and among all of this ,
these feelings would not be forced , rather legitimate as they would be
feelings that the child came to of their on accord , merely through the
experience of their life .

some would say that if one cannot sustain a monogomous relationship
then it must be that they will rather just be promiscuous and
become disease ridden . this can be true , however while practicing
this way of being we must not forget other important virtues which
we have learned in the past . in this case , everything in moderation .
if it was taught from childhood [once again] that you could love many
people and care for many people and that you didn't need to just be
with one single person forever , then the desire to just be outlandishly
promiscuous wouldn't ever appear to beign with . for example , when
something is not forbidden then the interest in it will be less so than
if it were . the bottom line is that things would be different . it is
only in this perverse society which ideals of a single love thrive
because it has been so heavily bred into the very fabric of our beings
to believe this is true .

all these preconceptions about love and "one partner for your whole life"
don't have to be the basis for so much jealousy , hate , and violence .
if only we would teach our children from the youngest age that it was ok
to love everyone for whatever reason we can . if only we would realize that
no one is better than anyone else , just that we form different relationsips
with one another that each have their own place within our beings that is
special . if only we could see and value these things we could create a world
in which love is not something private and would not seperate us from eachother "

any thoughts?

*disclaimer* i do not wish to imply all marriage is shallow or rife with resentment and jealousy, or that it is impossible for two people to grow in a similar direction over the years.
just saying it seems the majority of marriages i've seen (including my own parents') aren't anything i'd wish to impose on myself.

Asher. The last topic about time and dimensions was accidentally put here.
Sorry to take this of topic briefly. ( I moved it obviously) :P

As far as the topic at hand.
I am recently married so I hate to dabble in what you claim though I think it has a lot of truth.
I right know, am going to ignore all the signs of evolution and other creatures and play ignorant.
But it is truthful.
1.Most all and very few exceptions of old married couple are one of three things
Actually happy. (which I think you need to consistently engage in new activities and as you pointed out make an effort to grow together. Not apart. Communication!

2. They are bitter towards one another and never seem to have a nice thing to say. Hidden innuendoes of bitterness. Or belittling

3. It is as if they live together, yet lead different lives. Just sharing a house. (although I believe in all these cases there is a sense of attachment)

Quote:

---

As far as the topic at hand.
I am recently married so I hate to dabble in what you claim though I think it has a lot of truth.
I right know, am going to ignore all the signs of evolution and other creatures and play ignorant.
But it is truthful.
1.Most all and very few exceptions of old married couple are one of three things
Actually happy. (which I think you need to consistently engage in new activities and as you pointed out make an effort to grow together. Not apart. Communication!

2. They are bitter towards one another and never seem to have a nice thing to say. Hidden innuendoes of bitterness. Or belittling

3. It is as if they live together, yet lead different lives. Just sharing a house. (although I believe in all these cases there is a sense of attachment) [/b]

---

This reminds me of a song:

It is a day of cold and you arrive home,
come from a Thursday tired.
The furniture, your dog and million eyes
are waiting like always for your return,
in which you feel that nothing has changed.
The same thing waits for you,
the dream has passed.

You gather your hair,
so freely in the evening
probably because someone never saw it imprisoned.
You sit down and dine, and all your guilt
meet on a major weight than your forces.
And your eyes tell,
on this mad evening until
you are weak and cover your mouth.

When everything happens
you believe yourself sure,
while with your hours you remove ashes.
you feel very inside prohibited passions.
It is not important to lie to be happy,
until a desire gets into your bed.
Now, what are you thinking?
You cover your chest.

But you need to stay well with everything,
everything that is not well with you.
The distress is the price of being one itself.
Better being happy as our parents
and to do of a pity eternal loves,
until, eventually, winter will cover you.

I don't like translating songs cause it sucks, but I guess it gives the point :P

anyone ever notice how monogomy and monotony sound so similar?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquanina
anyone ever notice how monogomy and monotony sound so similar?

---

lol...and I think they both produce the same effect.

I know it's not for everyone, but I find swinging (partner swapping for recreational sex) to be a very fulfilling and rewarding experience. Again this isn't an answer for all of the negative effects of monogomy, just an alternative. ;)~

I think that's why monogamous relationships need a bit of drama from time to time to keep them from getting bored and moving on

SOMEthing has to change or evolve or at least get twisted and demented so that the relationship is dynamic, else it goes down the toilet

from my experience anyway

firstly, congratulations howetzer! :) i think the 3 categories you listed are acurate generalizations. and from the little i have seen, you are destined for the first category. communication is the key.

personally, i tend to think of love/relationship as music. we are each a unique, ever-changing vibrational field. if two individuals create 'beautiful music together", it means their two notes together create a harmonious song. they are each expanded (through temporary 'union') by extending themselves past solitary existence.

the trouble arises when we attempt to put the initial song on endless loop, which inevitably leads to stagnation and lifelessness.

or, when one person tries to 'take the lead' constantly, and reduce the other person to a background role

or, again, when one or both parties attempt to control the flow of the song, and make it grow within the confines of their expectations, instead of realizing it is the living, changing product of two living, changing souls.

there is joy in improvisation. and improvisation requires the present moment. it can only occur here and now. possession is impossible if one is truly in the present moment.

stuffed animals, pressed flowers, and money are owned, not ever-changing people.

What I can't understand is that some people seem to think that it is impossible for someone to love more than one person. Obviously jealousy comes into the picture with it all, but why on earth would anyone want to spend the rest of their lives with just one person?

If life is a garden then why not taste ALL the flowers :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InTheMoment

lol...and I think they both produce the same effect.

I know it's not for everyone, but I find swinging (partner swapping for recreational sex) to be a very fulfilling and rewarding experience. Again this isn't an answer for all of the negative effects of monogomy, just an alternative. ;)~

---

hey, swinging just became legal in Canada (meaning you can go to a club, meet others of like mind, and do your thing on the premises) :wink:

out of curiosity, how was the subject broached between you and your partner? were they immediately open to the idea?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asher

out of curiosity, how was the subject broached between you and your partner? were they immediately open to the idea?

---

Well my first experience with swinging was initiated by Ecstasy. Me and my girl (at that time) were with one of my good friends and his girl. It was there first time rolling and before I knew it, my girl and his girl we're making out on the dance floor.

One thing led to another and before we knew it, we were back at my girl's apt. frolicking about the futon in the nude. ;)~

Surprisingly, no one felt guilty the next day and it wasn't even ackward. At that point I was hooked. I've never been more turned on in my life, than watching my buddy have sex with my girl. That was even more intense than my girl and his girl making out.

So now, whenever I am faced with entering a serious relationship, I make sure that my partner knows what I am into. Because if she's not into it from the start, trust me it won't work out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InTheMoment

Well my first experience with swinging was initiated by Ecstasy. Me and my girl (at that time) were with one of my good friends and his girl. It was there first time rolling and before I knew it, my girl and his girl we're making out on the dance floor.

One thing led to another and before we knew it, we were back at my girl's apt. frolicking about the futon in the nude. ;)~

Surprisingly, no one felt guilty the next day and it wasn't even ackward. At that point I was hooked. I've never been more turned on in my life, than watching my buddy have sex with my girl. That was even more intense than my girl and his girl making out.

So now, whenever I am faced with entering a serious relationship, I make sure that my partner knows what I am into. Because if she's not into it from the start, trust me it won't work out.

---

:mrgreen: righteous...

Isn't monogamy having less then 2 ho's?

LMFAO!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo
Isn't monogamy having less then 2 ho's?

---

That is mohogamy :P

[quote]That is mohogamy
+buh DUM dum+

[quote]

That is mohogamy

*laughs*

I don't know...For some people, a non-monogamous lifestyle is probably the way to go. For others, not. Not everyone is the same, and people all want different things in life. If manogamy works, go for it. If not, then do whatever does work. I don't think having a non-manogamous lifestyle would work for me, because I get way too attached to people. I am in a very happy and satisfying relationship and I am going to be married sometime in the near future. But, damn...Life is too short. So, do what you want if it makes you happy and does not hurt anyone else.

That was an excellent blog, my views exactly, although i do agree with Gwendolyn in that some people are still going to prefer a monogamous relationship simply because everyone's different and you can still live a very happy life this way.

I sometimes feel that the human race is a little too 'civilised'. What i mean by this is that there are many things that would work out better if we were a little more primative, so to speak, I think humans are too complex and there's a lot of unnecessary bollocks.

Take sex for instance, really it's supposed to be for the survival of the species (i'm not saying you shouldn't have it for fun as well :wink: in this case I mean when you are doing it with solely reproduction in mind). Animals are supposed to choose a sexual partner based on their genes and whether or not they are different to their own. Humans still do this, apparently you detect it using smell, mainly subconsciously, but it is not as strong in humans because of the way our minds work, we put a very large emphasis on looks, and personalities, things like that. This causes people to choose partners that may have genes similair to their own in some way and it can cause an unnecessary defect in their children.Obviously there would be instances of this happening anyway but it would be a lot less frequent.

I think that because of this human way of thought, we are evolving slower than we could be, not becoming as efficient as we could be. If we reproduced in the right way, we would be creating healthier, stronger children that would have better immunities, and would go on to create even healthier children in turn. This clearly happens already, but no-way near enough as it could do.

Please forgive me if i'm not explaining this very well, I find it difficult to put across an argument in text but i'm trying my best.

Also, don't think that i'm just gonna go round sniffing people trying to find the right partner based on their smell, I don't think many women would be into that, i'm still human, I just sometimes think that as a species, we'd be better off if we were less human.

Just my two cents.

Here's a very interesting article, give it a read!

http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=...rticle&sid=7249

There is a huge difference between not being entirely monogamous, that is, moving on from one partner to another in the course of time, and getting in big scummy piles of naked flesh on weekends, trying not to mind when some buddy of yours puts one up your butt, and then going home with a girlfriend who evidently finds you worth living with only because you are the one paying the rent while she she'd rather be getting a hard ride by your best friend who doesn't need to support any girlfriend of his own because you're so willing to manage his stable for him. Why pay for the milk when your friend is willing to keep a cow for you.

One can abandon monogamy and evolve to a new partner now and again without having to abandon all human dignity and sink to degradations below that of any self respecting animal.

I'd like to point out that monogamy is not a human invention. It exists within the societies of many species of organism.

My take on it, is that there is more to the relationship than the sexual aspects. I can't think of any guy who suddenly loses the desire to stick it in an attractive girl (assuming heterosexuality) even if he's married or otherwise seriously involved. Limiting yourself to one "life partner" limits your potential accruement of knowledge, experience and wisdom--not just ass and titties.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont
There is a huge difference between not being entirely monogamous, that is, moving on from one partner to another in the course of time, and getting in big scummy piles of naked flesh on weekends, trying not to mind when some buddy of yours puts one up your butt, and then going home with a girlfriend who evidently finds you worth living with only because you are the one paying the rent while she she'd rather be getting a hard ride by your best friend who doesn't need to support any girlfriend of his own because you're so willing to manage his stable for him. *Why pay for the milk when your friend is willing to keep a cow for you. *

One can abandon monogamy and evolve to a new partner now and again without having to abandon all human dignity and sink to degradations below that of any self respecting animal.

---

ahahahhahahhahahahahah

In response to the initial monogamy question - I have been cheated on before and it's not a nice feeling (to say the least). I think if both people agree that swinging is okay in their unique situation, then what's wrong with that? But I think most people want to feel like they are respected and loved, and that usually doesn't include having your significant other fucking someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont
There is a huge difference between not being entirely monogamous, that is, moving on from one partner to another in the course of time, and getting in big scummy piles of naked flesh on weekends, trying not to mind when some buddy of yours puts one up your butt, and then going home with a girlfriend who evidently finds you worth living with only because you are the one paying the rent while she she'd rather be getting a hard ride by your best friend who doesn't need to support any girlfriend of his own because you're so willing to manage his stable for him. *Why pay for the milk when your friend is willing to keep a cow for you. *

One can abandon monogamy and evolve to a new partner now and again without having to abandon all human dignity and sink to degradations below that of any self respecting animal.

---

I totally agree.

There is more to love than sex. I think love goes deeper than that, and that is why I choose to be monogamous. Love isn't lust. It is totally different. So, maybe even after you quit wanting to have sex all of the time, you still want to be with that person because you understand them and they do you, and if you wanted to have sex, it would be with that person. I know many happy couples of 10+ years that are still quit happy together including my own parents and both sets of grandparents. Just because the lust part declines in a relationship, it does not mean that the love part does. As I previously said, monogamy isn't for everyone...I just happen to think that the love aspect of a relationship is way more important of the sexual part of the relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
There is more to love than sex. I think love goes deeper than that, and that is why I choose to be monogamous. Love isn't lust. It is totally different. So, maybe even after you quit wanting to have sex all of the time, you still want to be with that person because you understand them and they do you, and if you wanted to have sex, it would be with that person. I know many happy couples of 10+ years that are still quit happy together including my own parents and both sets of grandparents. Just because the lust part declines in a relationship, it does not mean that the love part does. As I previously said, monogamy isn't for everyone...I just happen to think that the love aspect of a relationship is way more important of the sexual part of the relationship.

---

Amen to that...i wonder, if more people tried to see past the whole sex thing, maybe relationships would last longer? Sex doesn't glue two people together...if that's all that's holding you together, then it's bound to all fall apart eventually. I've seen it happen!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by irishcream


Amen to that...i wonder, if more people tried to see past the whole sex thing, maybe relationships would last longer? *Sex doesn't glue two people together...if that's all that's holding you together, then it's bound to all fall apart eventually. *I've seen it happen!

---

I think we'd definately see more love in the world, and more understanding of it. I don't think sex is bad; quite the contrary, but I do think it could be bad if used in a way that hurts others or has potential to do so. For a valid relationship, sex cannot be the primary factor.

I think friendship is the real basis of a lasting relationship. Love, in my opinion, is just a clever chemical trick. Friendship, on the other hand, exists outside of your brain chemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I think friendship is the real basis of a lasting relationship. *Love, in my opinion, is just a clever chemical trick. *Friendship, on the other hand, exists outside of your brain chemistry.

---

I completely agree. Very well said, mongreloctopus.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I think friendship is the real basis of a lasting relationship. *Love, in my opinion, is just a clever chemical trick. *Friendship, on the other hand, exists outside of your brain chemistry.

---

Love is a huge part of friendship.

Ive been married for 25 years. I quite like it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lucidvegan
Ive been married for 25 years. I quite like it.

---

So how long has it been since your husband passed away? :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InTheMoment

So how long has it been since your husband passed away? :P

---

Besides your joke being totally way to harsh:

I once saw this thing on tv about a man that kept this 17 year old girl in his house for years after she died. He kind of sew her body together so it wouldn't fall apart. He allso inserted a vaginal tube so he could have sexual intercourse with the corpse.

Kinkey.

christ man, gefilte fish

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo

I once saw this thing on tv about a man that kept this 17 year old girl in his house for years after she died. He kind of sew her body together so it wouldn't fall apart. He allso inserted a vaginal tube so he could have sexual intercourse with the corpse.

---

And I thought I was bad for patching up my inflatable lover with duct tape. I guess that puts me more into the realm of cheap, rather than kinky.

hey baby, we rednecks wouldn't BE rednecks without our duct tape and Dollar General ;)

Love(between two people) = dependecy ... Relationship = dependecy ... Sex = :D

I don't mind being in a relationship, but it won't last long for the simple fact that I'm too much of a loner, I don't depend to much emotionaly on someone to be in love with them for ever. Monogamy is for people who are willing to commit to one another on a emotional dependece that has to be sure not to die, this is why I think one only falls in love once, that first person who you commit your emotions to first, everything being new, once past that and understanding what actual love is, it dies, I've seen people who are capable of everlasting love, but it is normally people who reach one point and stay there for X reason (kids, ideals, fear of loneliness, etc).

Same goes for when one really has lust for some people, I've found myself on various ocasions where I would meet someone I just have to have sex with, and due to some crazy fact that most of this people don't actually like to go around having casual sex, I end up pressing and rushing for a relationship wich I know won't work, have some fun with it and end it, but it'd be great if I didn't have to go thru all that trouble, there are people that need to learn that like: me hungry me eat, me horny me screw.

If i'd ever get a life partner it had to be someone like me, a loner.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sortilegio
Love(between two people) = dependecy *... *Relationship = dependecy *... *Sex = *:D *

I don't mind being in a relationship, but it won't last long for the simple fact that I'm too much of a loner, I don't depend to much emotionaly on someone to be in love with them for ever. Monogamy is for people who are willing to commit to one another on a emotional dependece that has to be sure not to die, this is why I think one only falls in love once, that first person who you commit your emotions to first, everything being new, once past that and understanding what actual love is, it dies, I've seen people who are capable of everlasting love, but it is normally people who reach one point and stay there for X reason (kids, ideals, fear of loneliness, etc). *

Same goes for when one really has lust for some people, I've found myself on various ocasions where I would meet someone I just have to have sex with, and due to some crazy fact that most of this people don't actually like to go around having casual sex, I end up pressing and rushing for a relationship wich I know won't work, have some fun with it and end it, but it'd be great if I didn't have to go thru all that trouble, there are people that need to learn that like: me hungry me eat, me horny me screw.

If i'd ever get a life partner it had to be someone like me, a loner.

---

Here's a question. Do you think monogamy is more difficult over a distance?
I'm in a relationship that's long distance. In some ways, this suits me, because i like my own time, my own space. But at the same time, i miss having someone to talk to, being around me. Silly little things that are very hard to put into words. I mean, you can talk on the phone all you want, but you can't give that person the look you send out that means 'i love you'. It just doesn't transmit.
And yes, sometimes i am crazy for him...(probably why he comes up to see me every weekend, working or not!)
But in spite of that, i could never, ever cheat on him with someone else. Not in a million years.
I get guilty just looking!
And yet i've heard of others who have long distance relationships which are 'open' if you like, and i've never understood how that could work. Call me jealous,but i'd be wondering if she was better than me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by irishcream


Here's a question. *Do you think monogamy is more difficult over a distance?
I'm in a relationship that's long distance. *In some ways, this suits me, because i like my own time, my own space. *But at the same time, i miss having someone to talk to, being around me. *Silly little things that are very hard to put into words. *I mean, you can talk on the phone all you want, but you can't give that person the look you send out that means 'i love you'. *It just doesn't transmit.
And yes, sometimes i am crazy for him...(probably why he comes up to see me every weekend, working or not!)
But in spite of that, i could never, ever cheat on him with someone else. *Not in a million years.
I get guilty just looking!
And yet i've heard of others who have long distance relationships which are 'open' if you like, and i've never understood how that could work. *Call me jealous,but i'd be wondering if she was better than me.

---

Well it depends on how each persons takes the realtionship, If you both love each other and have overcome the lust that could drive you away to someone else, meaning both are commited towards it, and know each other well enough to have confidence. Me personally I could handle this tipe of situation as long as it is not eternaly seperate, there is always the need to share emotions personally, if she met every weekend I'd be fine with it and not worring about anything because I think I'f I'd ever wound up in this situation I'd be sure to know that someone and trust them enough to be fine with it too, and not to screw around.

If a long distance relationship has open sexuality, it is because both persons have means of uncontrolably lust and depend on getting laid, so it would be some sort of escapee of sexual tension to keep the emotional realtionship going.

In the end it all falls down to how high is your emotional dependance and how willingly you commit yourself towards this relationship, on both sides, if both have the same level then it'd be no problem wich scenerio you put them on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sortilegio


Well it depends on how each persons takes the realtionship, If you both love each other and have overcome the lust that could drive you away to someone else, meaning both are commited towards it, and know each other well enough to have confidence. Me personally I could handle this tipe of situation as long as it is not eternaly seperate, there is always the need to share emotions personally, if she met every weekend I'd be fine with it and not worring about anything because I think I'f I'd ever wound up in this situation I'd be sure to know that someone and trust them enough to be fine with it too, and not to screw around. *

If a long distance relationship has open sexuality, it is because both persons have means of uncontrolably lust and depend on getting laid, so it would be some sort of escapee of sexual tension to keep the emotional realtionship going.

In the end it all falls down to how high is your emotional dependance and how willingly you commit yourself towards this relationship, on both sides, if both have the same level then it'd be no problem wich scenerio you put them on.

---

I would say i was dependent on him for a lot of things. It's just the person he is that i depend on. How he makes me feel like no one else on the planet ever could.
I think it's a case of we both know the score, we both wish it could be easier, but we've accepted our situation, knowing it's not going to be like this forever. The fact that we talk every single day helps too, there's never any time for resentment or insecurity to breed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by irishcream
Here's a question. *Do you think monogamy is more difficult over a distance?
I'm in a relationship that's long distance. *In some ways, this suits me, because i like my own time, my own space. *But at the same time, i miss having someone to talk to, being around me. *Silly little things that are very hard to put into words. *I mean, you can talk on the phone all you want, but you can't give that person the look you send out that means 'i love you'. *It just doesn't transmit.
And yes, sometimes i am crazy for him...(probably why he comes up to see me every weekend, working or not!)
But in spite of that, i could never, ever cheat on him with someone else. *Not in a million years.
I get guilty just looking!
And yet i've heard of others who have long distance relationships which are 'open' if you like, and i've never understood how that could work. *Call me jealous,but i'd be wondering if she was better than me.

---

I'm glad this long-distance relationship is working for you. As for me, on the other hand, my trust in other people was completely shattered by a long-term, long-distance relationship. We went to different colleges, about 90 miles apart. We saw each other once, maybe twice a week. We were together for about 3 years at the time. I felt I was in a completely trusting relationship and NEVER dreamed in a million years that he would cheat on me. I completely trusted him... And I caught him cheating on me. I won't describe the circumstances b/c they're really not that important, but the point is - it broke my heart. And I've never been the same since. I've since gotten married, but I have a severe complex with trust now. I felt so betrayed by my ex-boyfriend, that now I'm totally paranoid, and sometimes drive myself crazy worrying about if my husband is cheating on me. I know he's not, but in the voice inside my head tells me that I thought my ex wasn't cheating on me either - and he was.

So anyway, sorry to bring in the rain clouds - and I don't want to freak you out or anything. I'm sure you and your boyfriend will be just fine. Me, on the other hand, will never be the same. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burns91


I'm glad this long-distance relationship is working for you. As for me, on the other hand, my trust in other people was completely shattered by a long-term, long-distance relationship. We went to different colleges, about 90 miles apart. We saw each other once, maybe twice a week. We were together for about 3 years at the time. I felt I was in a completely trusting relationship and NEVER dreamed in a million years that he would cheat on me. I completely trusted him... And I caught him cheating on me. I won't describe the circumstances b/c they're really not that important, but the point is - it broke my heart. And I've never been the same since. I've since gotten married, but I have a severe complex with trust now. I felt so betrayed by my ex-boyfriend, that now I'm totally paranoid, and sometimes drive myself crazy worrying about if my husband is cheating on me. I know he's not, but in the voice inside my head tells me that I thought my ex wasn't cheating on me either - and he was. *

So anyway, sorry to bring in the rain clouds - and I don't want to freak you out or anything. I'm sure you and your boyfriend will be just fine. Me, on the other hand, will never be the same. *:(

---

I'm really sorry it didn't work out for you. :hug: I know a couple of people that have been in long distance relationships and it hasn't worked. I think that's why i'm so determined that ours will.
It's awful to think that even though he got to see you once a week, he still found time to cheat on you while he was studying. The mind boggles....
I don't get time to look at another bloke, let alone consider cheating. For me, there has to be some kind of emotional connection. I couldn't sleep witn someone just to fulfill a need.
There's batteries for that...lol.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by irishcream
It's awful to think that even though he got to see you once a week, he still found time to cheat on you while he was studying. The mind boggles....
I don't get time to look at another bloke, let alone consider cheating. For me, there has to be some kind of emotional connection. I couldn't sleep witn someone just to fulfill a need.

---

My fiance and I only get to see one another every weekend, though it is usually all weekend. Even so, I don't know how either of us could find time to cheat on each other. We are always on the phone it seems and we both have school all day, and I also have college classes beside of my high school classes. How in the world....?

Anyway, I think having a long distance relationship, or at least having one in which you don't get to see your partner all of the time is good in a way...I miss my fiance all of the time, but at least I know that if we can be together while we're apart, being together all of the time would be a cinch. I am sorry though, burns, about the person that cheated on you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwendolyn


My fiance and I only get to see one another every weekend, though it is usually all weekend. Even so, I don't *know how either of us could find time to cheat on each other. We are always on the phone it seems and we both have school all day, and I also have college classes beside of my high school classes. How in the world....? *

Anyway, I think having a long distance relationship, or at least having one in which you don't get to see your partner all of the time is good in a way...I miss my fiance all of the time, but at least I know that if we can be together while we're apart, being together all of the time would be a cinch. I am sorry though, burns, about the person that cheated on you.

---

sometimes being apart is better also, because you still have a level of independence, which you might lose, seeing someone day in day out.

I regret everyday that I have been brought up in a culture that trains us to think of sex as some sort of sacred thing, that when performed with someone outside of a relationship is overwhelmingly devastating to the psyche. I have been a victim of "adultery" and suffered a huge blow to many facets of my psyche--a lowered confidence in my actions, thoughts and ideas, frustration and anger at myself, a constant paranoia that people I consider to be too close to me to betray me are secretly conspiring against me...Most of this I was able to repair relatively quickly on my own (I believe completely in the power of the mind to overcome anything and everything), but I came to the realization that the only reason I was harmed by this "trespass" was because of my naïve and unreasonable expectations--it was not the girlfriend that wounded me...It was I. I tried to come up with solutions to this problem that would allow me to have unreasonable-expectation-free relationships with people, and the best thing I could come up with was trying to become as asexual as possible. It seems like a viable solution, because for the most part sexual desire just clouds judgement and makes the mind foggy. Of course, this is easier said than done, but everything in life is a struggle, and the true warrior never stops fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I regret everyday that I have been brought up in a culture that trains us to think of sex as some sort of sacred thing, that when performed with someone outside of a relationship is overwhelmingly devastating to the psyche. *I have been a victim of "adultery" and suffered a huge blow to many facets of my psyche--a lowered confidence in my actions, thoughts and ideas, frustration and anger at myself, a constant paranoia that people I consider to be too close to me to betray me are secretly conspiring against me...Most of this I was able to repair relatively quickly on my own (I believe completely in the power of the mind to overcome anything and everything), but I came to the realization that the only reason I was harmed by this "trespass" was because of my naïve and unreasonable expectations--it was not the girlfriend that wounded me...It was I. *I tried to come up with solutions to this problem that would allow me to have unreasonable-expectation-free relationships with people, and the best thing I could come up with was trying to become as asexual as possible. *It seems like a viable solution, because for the most part sexual desire just clouds judgement and makes the mind foggy. *Of course, this is easier said than done, but everything in life is a struggle, and the true warrior never stops fighting.

---

You just radicaly extremly went over to the other edge, asexual? I mean, if its about fear of confidence and betrayel you don't need to go the otherway around to keep away human contact, its like if you do something stupid in public and confine yourself in a room and never see people again afraid of being public, you don't solve any problems that way, to become asexual could be for diferent matters, like spiritually, but not like that. If you are to afraid of betrayel and can't trust people then you should check and see how emotionaly given you are to people, if you depend to much on someone, you should see if its worth giving them so much dependace, are they giving it back on the same level? if not then don't be suprised of betrayel, what people need to learn is how to give away their will at someone without giving it completely without return, that is not love, thats desperation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I regret everyday that I have been brought up in a culture that trains us to think of sex as some sort of sacred thing, that when performed with someone outside of a relationship is overwhelmingly devastating to the psyche. I have been a victim of "adultery" and suffered a huge blow to many facets of my psyche--a lowered confidence in my actions, thoughts and ideas, frustration and anger at myself, a constant paranoia that people I consider to be too close to me to betray me are secretly conspiring against me...Most of this I was able to repair relatively quickly on my own (I believe completely in the power of the mind to overcome anything and everything), but I came to the realization that the only reason I was harmed by this "trespass" was because of my naïve and unreasonable expectations--it was not the girlfriend that wounded me...It was I. I tried to come up with solutions to this problem that would allow me to have unreasonable-expectation-free relationships with people, and the best thing I could come up with was trying to become as asexual as possible. It seems like a viable solution, because for the most part sexual desire just clouds judgement and makes the mind foggy. Of course, this is easier said than done, but everything in life is a struggle, and the true warrior never stops fighting.

---

I don't understand how sex isn't sacred. It is somewhat of a spiritual experience for me. I mean, I am really self conscious about almost all of the parts of my body. To have someone who loves my body as well as who I am aside from my body is something sacred. Sharing myself wholly is something I could never do with someone I didn't trust and love.

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!

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.

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!

---

Good advice!

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.

---

flesh is born of flesh, spirit is born of spirit.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. .

---

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...

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.

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...

---

Kahlil Gibran always has something useful to say on every subject. Gotta' love him. :)

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.

---

you would unify your 'mind' with the 'universe'?

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I think it is foolish to base life on procreation since we actually have the choice now.

---

*laughs* i just started to re-read my last post, and i didn't bother finishing it, even though i wrote it :D


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.

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.

---

fair enough. and i hope you at least indulged in an actual laugh regarding the hypothetical situation.. :wink:

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.

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.

---

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Stuff it, A-hole.

---

I was waiting for someone to say that

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.

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!

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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"

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"

---

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 Gwendolyn


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?

---

That is true.

But often married couples incorporate celibacy into their effective definitions of their monogamy. They don't want sex to disrupt their arrangment one way or another.

You see, after a certain point in one's sexual experience, one realizes that there is nothing new under the sun. If you have a working relationship with your spouse -- not sexually, but functionally -- he or she brings home money, cleans, does the shopping, pays the bills, fixes the cars, etc. Then it seems silly, if sex is no longer THAT important, to get a divorce. Who will bring home money, clean, do the shopping, pay the bills, fix the cars.

Indeed, I would consider getting married again EXCEPT that I suppose the lady would expect to have sex, and would probably expect to be able to intrude upon my privacy. Many marriages would benefit, I suspect, if only certain personal boundaries were tacitly, that is, culturally understood and accepted. As it is, couples get married because they are in love and certain issues are never explicitly confronted -- that each person will have one room that is exclusively and privately their own, with no intrusions ever allowed, that behavior won't be informal, that all ettiquettes and polite forms will maintain. I suppose the greatest problem in modern marriages is that the couples are expected to share a bedroom. My god, but when can anybody ever get any privacy!?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont

My god, but when can anybody ever get any privacy!?

---

lucid dreams

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont


That is true.

But often married couples incorporate celibacy into their effective definitions of their monogamy. *They don't want sex to disrupt their arrangment one way or another. *

You see, after a certain point in one's sexual experience, one realizes that there is nothing new under the sun. *If you have a working relationship with your spouse -- not sexually, but functionally -- he or she brings home money, cleans, does the shopping, pays the bills, fixes the cars, etc. *Then it seems silly, if sex is no longer THAT important, to get a divorce. *Who will bring home money, clean, do the shopping, pay the bills, fix the cars. *

Indeed, I would consider getting married again EXCEPT that I suppose the lady would expect to have sex, and would probably expect to be able to intrude upon my privacy. *Many marriages would benefit, I suspect, if only certain personal boundaries were tacitly, that is, culturally understood and accepted. * As it is, couples get married because they are in love and certain issues are never explicitly confronted -- that each person will have one room that is exclusively and privately their own, with no intrusions ever allowed, that behavior won't be informal, that all ettiquettes and polite forms will maintain. *I suppose the greatest problem in modern marriages is that the couples are expected to share a bedroom. *My god, but when can anybody ever get any privacy!?

---

I think that is a very valid argument. This is one of the issues my fiance and I have discussed. I don't think it is fair to trap a person into thinking you have the right to intrude on someone's privacy, even if they are your spouse. I think it is only natural to want your own personal space, and these things are aspects my fiance and I do not want to give up completely. Even if you do sleep in the same bed, you could have seperate 'rooms' of the house, as your own. My parents have had problems regarding privacy recently, and seeing this was the warning I needed to take this into account.

I agree with you. My 'stuff' is my 'stuff'. I leave my diary lying around, and i trust my boyfriend not to read it...
I'd be mad if he ever did. I don't go through his stuff, unless i've asked first, something like 'what you got in here, can i see?'