Marriage, In General. [Archive]

VonClausewitz

8th November 2006, 23:21

Marriage, as stated by the author, is a wonderful way to smash relationships because its forced.

Where in the western world are people forced to marry ? If one thinks that marriage is a step to far for a relationship, one does not get married. It's not the 19th century anymore, society is used to single-parents and co-habiting types. Some sad little countries still practice arranged marriage and the like, but in the grand scheme of things, those places are a blip, as their governments are generally liberalising, no matter how slowly.

Marriage for me then;

An age-old religious institution that is primarily used now by the religious and the wealthy - those who can't afford the whole church bit can get some beuarocrat to marry them for a fraction of the price. It's a way of saying that you will be a stable unit of people, something that most societies depend on. It's fun to be single, or unattached, by a country couldn't run well if everyone was off doing their own thing. People say marriage is one of the bedrocks of a stable society, and I'm inclined to agree, regardless of what form marriage is conducted in.

The Bitter Hippy

8th November 2006, 23:23

having been in a very succesful open relationship, i can testify to them working. Jealousy was not really an issue: i usually find that it only becomes a problem when the third party is disrupting the normal flow of the relationship. (from observation of how some have gone wrong).

personally i am against the concept of marriage, but it can be useful in the society in which we live for tax, mortgage and inheritance purposes.

Noah

8th November 2006, 23:26

I don't know about "marriage" but I know that one day I'd like to spend the rest of my life with one person..Of course they wouldn't be forced, I wouldn't be like

harr you're mine!

It would be mutual..It doesn't have to marriage but we will probably get married..Too young to know.

Qwerty Dvorak

8th November 2006, 23:29

Not sure. Still, "Open Relationships" are bollocks, it must be impossible to avoid jealousy. Not that I've ever been in an open relationship.
I was in an open relationship for some time, however as we grew closer jealousy became an issue on both sides and eventually it turned into an exclusive relationship. I have never been happier.

Of course, I don't believe open relationships are unworkable; obviously if an open relationship works for a particular couple then they should by all means go ahead with it, however I do see a problem with people going around claiming monogamy to be somehow inferior to polygamy. There is nothing wrong with either kind of relationship, as long as all involved parties are happy.

The Bitter Hippy

9th November 2006, 00:43

monogamy is only inferior in that it is forced by social convention, and not selected by the parties.

In a society such as that of the advanced capitalist nations right now, monogamy is seen as the norm, so much so that polygamous relationships are frowned upon by many and most think of them as "cheating". It takes much explaining to get an average member of society to understand and condone an open relationship, and so many are pressured into limiting their relationships by peer pressure to conform.

I have no problem with monogamous relationships per se, but the socially accepted and defended model of the closed relationship makes all monogamy a target for criticism.

Finally i think that it is this climate that generates the jealousy perceived by some here. i am inclined to think that jealousy would not be an issue in a truly tolerant society. Of course, if a third party gets in the way of the normal course of the open relationship then it's a problem, but that would happen in a monogamous relationship.

To sum up: Neither is better, but the current system makes me biased against all closed relationships, and makes many others biased against open relationships. It is also a cause for many open relationships to fail.

RevMARKSman

9th November 2006, 01:20

Where in the western world are people forced to marry ? If one thinks that marriage is a step to far for a relationship, one does not get married.

It's just that once you marry someone, you are tied to them. Forever. And essentially told that you can't get rid of this person (divorce is seen as a bad thing). Since humans will almost always crave what they cannot have, after a while about half of these formerly loving spouses become sick of their partners just because they cannot leave them.

Mujer Libre

9th November 2006, 01:41

Originally posted by BTOT
I sometimes think that it crushes relationships, by making it forced. I suppose it goes right back to the issue of monogamy itself, is that even a good concept?
I think marriage is bullshit because people don't and shouldn't need the state or religion to legitimise their relationship before society. Also, I think compulsory monogamy is bullshit and that society should in no way sanction people who pursue alternative relationships.

Not sure. Still, "Open Relationships" are bollocks, it must be impossible to avoid jealousy. Not that I've ever been in an open relationship.
I hate when people say stuff like that, and I get it all the time. I'm in an open relationship, and it works fine! People seem to make general pronouncements like "open relationships don't work" or "you'll just end up with jealousy" based on their own feelings, not realising that they're not applicable to everyone else.

apathy maybe

9th November 2006, 05:59

In this thread http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=27965 you can find my thoughts on marriage.

Basically it is bullshit. Now one has any right telling others how to live their relationships. Relationships should not be forced. And (at least in Australia) marriage is not needed to still get the economic benifits.

BurnTheOliveTree

9th November 2006, 09:18

Black Dagger

9th November 2006, 09:43

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree
What is A to do? Does jealousy just like, not happen? Do you ignore the jealousy? Confront it somehow?

I'm in an open relationship, so i'll answer this for me.

I think i'll always be more 'attached' to A than i will anyone else, because we are best friends bar none. From that POV, C or D or E or whatever are not replacements for A, they're just other people to have sex and friendships with. Being in an open relationship doesn't mean that all other relationships have some kind of parity, they don't, in most cases (though of course this may change, i dont know) they are and will always be inferior to the relationship i have with A and from numerous discussions with A, it is the same way for them.

I don't get 'jealous' because i made a conscious decision to have an open relationship, i don't own my partner, if they want to have sex or do whatever with other people that is their choice, but it doesnt affect how we feel about each other - i dont see why it should? (though im speaking for myself, A has not communicated any problems to me in this regard so i assume they feel basically the same as i do). It's important to be talking about this kind of stuff and its something that we do.

One thing we agreed on was that we had to be up front about ALL relationships we had, so if either of sexes someone else we let the other know, so there will be no secrets or dishonesty. We've got a very strong relationship and have been together for 3.5 years, so there is a lot of trust there already.

As far as your scenario goes, i dont think it applies to my relationship at all, in fact it seems constructed in a way that presupposes a few things about ALL open relationships which just isnt true.

Like, it assumes that A and B aren't already 'attached' to one another, as is the case in my relationship, that it is open does not mean we dont have an incredibly strong bond, it simply means we respect each others autonomy, to make decisions about ones' life or sexual relationships, so dont assume that open relationships are less serious than monogamous ones - that is completely fallacious.

Also it presupposes jealousy, 'what is A to do?' assumes that A is upset with the situation, when in reality they made the conscious decision to have an open relationship in the first place, i.e. jealousy shouldnt be a problem for them. As long as i can maintain my relationship with A i will be happy, and so far there has been no change in our level of intimacy.

edit:

BTW, marriage is shit and should be abolished :)

At present it is a legal form of economic privilege (coupled with social privilege that has evolved from the material status afforded to it by law), that privileges (in most countries) monogamous hetero couples (and the bourgeois, 'nuclear family') over ALL other partner and family types, queer and non-queer, polyamorous and monogamous.

The only acceptable solution (short of course of abolishing the state, and thus 'state-sanctioned' and legally privileged institutions such as marriage) to the current situation is to either strip 'marriage' of all legal privilege or extend all legal privileges given to married couples to all alternative relationship and family types, anything short of this (including same-sex marriage) is merely an extension of marriage privilege and not meaningful legal equality; but rather an attempt to maintain the dominance of the nuclear family structure and the privileging of this system.

Herman

9th November 2006, 09:43

Mujer Libre - So A is an open relationship with B. Everything is dandy. A also has a bit on the side in C, which doesn't bother B, because B has a bit on the side in D. A gets bored with C, thinks to him/herself that they are becoming more attached to B. B is still happy with an open relationship and is happy with D and A both.

What is A to do? Does jealousy just like, not happen? Do you ignore the jealousy? Confront it somehow?

-Alex

Nope, jealousy doesn't 'just happen'. It doesn't have to. It isn't human nature. It's a product of bourgeoisie morals that you should only live with one person whom you will love the rest of your life.

loveme4whoiam

9th November 2006, 09:44

Being a young(ish) guy, I'm looking at this from a position of "what I'd like" rather than "what I've experienced", and to be honest, I'd like to be in a monogamous relationship. All that cliche stuff about love and commitment and stuff, I want that. I don't particularly care about any sociological stuff or, for that matter, state stuff. I think people should live their lives how they wish, monogamous or not.

anarchista feminista

9th November 2006, 09:49

I don't intend to get married. I'd rather be in a de facto relationship. You get about as much cover, not exactly, by the law if the relationship breaks down. Children are always treated the same. I see it as a social expectation which has slowly broken down. Most people don't have the money, time or care. Divorce can be messy. I don't want to spend the money nor do I need a piece of paper or governments recognition of my relationship. Why should love have anything to do with the law? Only in the case of a break up I guess. I like the idea of a union if anyone really wants a ceremony. Marriage here also disregards homosexual couples and ATSI traditional ceremonies.

EDIT: In any case, it's not something I need to worry about right now. What happens in my future will happen. When it comes to that I can make my choices and think about it then.

chimx

9th November 2006, 19:20

marriage rox

ATG

11th November 2006, 13:35

I'm for marriage people should have the ability to spend an entirety with somebody if they choose it I'm not the marrying guy and i doubt i will ever marry.Also having kids while not married and raising them alone without a father or a mother might somehow traumatise them . it should be the choice of the person

Black Dagger

11th November 2006, 15:26

Originally posted by ATG+--> (ATG)I'm for marriage people should have the ability to spend an entirety with somebody if they choose it[/b]

You dont need to be married to have a long-term or monogamous relationship.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Also having kids while not married and raising them alone without a father or a mother might somehow traumatise them .

I dont suppose you could provide some proof for this claim?

ATG
it should be the choice of the person

Right, but people who do choose to get married should not be granted special privileges that are denied to people in other relationship types.

Mujer Libre

11th November 2006, 15:33

Originally posted by BD
I dont suppose you could provide some proof for this claim?

He won't because he can't. Studies in that area have been inconclusive- i.e. there is little to no difference. Hurrah!

ATG

11th November 2006, 16:03

so youre saying a kid would have no problem growing up without a father or mother? you sure know a lot

Black Dagger

11th November 2006, 16:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 02:03 am
so youre saying a kid would have no problem growing up without a father or mother? you sure know a lot
Of course im saying that, what a redundant question.

First of all,

You said:

Also having kids while not married and raising them alone without a father or a mother might somehow traumatise them .

You brought the issue of marriage into the equation which is irrelevant. Having parents that are married or not, has fuck all to do with how good/bad a kid is gonna turn out.

Second, as ML said, there has been no conclusive studies that proof the claim you are making.

Of course you can raise kids without a mother or a father, queer couples have been doin' it for yonks.

Just having two parents of the opposite doesn't mean shit, hetero couples are not inherently gifted in child-rearing, and for this reason kids with only one parent, or two parents of the same-sex can turn out just as good as kids raised by two parents of the opposite sex; because it's not about numbers it's about the care that is given.

It doesn't matter if you've got two parents of the opposite sex if they're shit parents they're shit parents, that you've got two of em' isn't gonna help.

Now perhaps instead of empty retorts like,

"so youre saying a kid would have no problem growing up without a father or mother? you sure know a lot"

You could back your shit up?

Cryotank Screams

11th November 2006, 16:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 06:48 pm
Not sure. Still, "Open Relationships" are bollocks, it must be impossible to avoid jealousy. Not that I've ever been in an open relationship.

I ployamorous which isn't the same thing as an "open," relationship but I think it is what you are referring to, and none of my lovers get jealous, that is a myth, however it is not for everyone, and if you approach it with honesty, and sincerity (just like any relationship), jealousy never becomes an issue.

On marriage;

"The horror of wedlock, the most appalling, the most loathsome of all the bonds humankind has devised for its own discomfort and degradation."-Marquis de Sade.

Forward Union

11th November 2006, 17:30

I have very strong oppinions on Marriage, that are pretty well reflected in Emma goldmans; Marriage and Love (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html) which I reccomend you read (it's pretty short) or even, Listen to (http://www.audioanarchy.org/emma/06-Marriage.mp3)

"Marriage and love have nothing in common; they are as far apart as the poles; are, in fact, antagonistic to each other. No doubt some marriages have been the result of love. Not, however, because love could assert itself only in marriage; much rather is it because few people can completely outgrow a convention"

Marriage is a superstition with no scientific basis. Love is something that doesn't require any documents to be signed, papers to be held or any form of rubber stamping. Walking up an isle, in a certain form of clothing and saying some words accounts for absolutely nothing in the material world, it has as much 'real value' as the idea that walking under a ladder means bad luck, or that throwing salt over your shoulder will get rid of the devil.

Most people agree that marriage is a failure, but I would go further and say that Monogamy is a failure, being in a polysexual relationship myself. Of course, people can enter into what ever from of consensual relationship they want, but evidence suggests that most people (around 70-80%) have a very hard time maintaining these exclusive relationships (sorry about the pun).

Not sure. Still, "Open Relationships" are bollocks, it must be impossible to avoid jealousy. Not that I've ever been in an open relationship.

Im in an open relationship, and Im not at all jealous. Granted, some people are a bit, to start with, but controlling jealousy is no where near as impossible as controlling your love for more than one person, in a closed relationship. You will want and flirt with other people regardless of the offical arrangement. A lot of people go all the way and have sexual relationships, behind their partners back. So it would seem to me that the expectations of a closed relationship don't match our natural mating patterns. Only social etiquette says we should supress our own feelings for one person at a time.

I think people should live their lives how they wish, monogamous or not.

Well, absolutely. The problem is if you want to be monogamous and the person you love doesn't. Or what if you fall in love with two people? will you disregard your own feelings in the face of social expectation? would you oppress your partners desires and force him/her to be only with you? Of course you have the right to live however you want, and have whatever form of consentual relationship you want, but it's not as simple as that sometimes. :lol:

ATG

12th November 2006, 12:06

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 11, 2006 04:23 pm--> (Black Dagger @ November 11, 2006 04:23 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2006 02:03 am
so youre saying a kid would have no problem growing up without a father or mother? you sure know a lot
Of course im saying that, what a redundant question.

First of all,

You said:

Also having kids while not married and raising them alone without a father or a mother might somehow traumatise them .

You brought the issue of marriage into the equation which is irrelevant. Having parents that are married or not, has fuck all to do with how good/bad a kid is gonna turn out.

Second, as ML said, there has been no conclusive studies that proof the claim you are making.

Of course you can raise kids without a mother or a father, queer couples have been doin' it for yonks.

Just having two parents of the opposite doesn't mean shit, hetero couples are not inherently gifted in child-rearing, and for this reason kids with only one parent, or two parents of the same-sex can turn out just as good as kids raised by two parents of the opposite sex; because it's not about numbers it's about the care that is given.

It doesn't matter if you've got two parents of the opposite sex if they're shit parents they're shit parents, that you've got two of em' isn't gonna help.

Now perhaps instead of empty retorts like,

"so youre saying a kid would have no problem growing up without a father or mother? you sure know a lot"

You could back your shit up? [/b]
OPS i dint mean that same sex couple couldn't raise kids i was just saying that raising a child alone can be pretty hard both financially and both physically but a child that has to moms or two dads is bound to be made fun out in school damn sometimes i just hate society <_<

BurnTheOliveTree

12th November 2006, 13:41

Love Underground - I wondered if you would post, I was aware of your views on marriage and monogamy. :)

I can see your logic behind rejecting monogamy, i.e. that we are naturally inclined to have feelings for more than one person, perhaps many more. And I can agree, just from personal experience, trying to limit and confine one's emotions is a futile and probably and painful exercise.

Here is my question to you then. Is monogamy an ideal worth striving for? For all it's practical difficulties, is an exclusive relationship actually desirable?

I ask this because it seems that in an open or polysexual relationship as you put it, even if jealousy is avoided or just isn't an issue, the bond between you and any of your given partners is fundamentally different to that of a monogamous one.

My idea of an ideal mongamous relationship is a kind of conspiracy of two, a united front against the world. They would confide the depths of their soul to eachother. I use the word soul in the poetic, metaphorical sense by the way. They would draw comfort from the fact that they alone could experience so deeply the other.

In a polysexual relationship, and perhaps this only demonstrates my ignorance, I can only imagine that there is a trade off of sorts. You get more partners, but you can never quite attain the sort of emotional bonds with them that you might get with an exclusive relationship.

-Alex

RedAnarchist

12th November 2006, 13:46

I oppose any attempt to constrict the sexual relationships of consenting adults with religious morality. So long as they consent to such acts, why should they not do them? Does the actions of two homosexual people in their own bedroom really affect the religious right? Of course not.

Marriage itself is a religious act - registry offices are a new phenonemon - and should not exist after the revolution has taken place, because we will have no need for these archaic relics of an ancient time.

Black Dagger

12th November 2006, 14:05

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+November 12, 2006 11:41 pm--> (BurnTheOliveTree @ November 12, 2006 11:41 pm) Here is my question to you then. Is monogamy an ideal worth striving for? For all it's practical difficulties, is an exclusive relationship actually desirable?

In a polysexual relationship, and perhaps this only demonstrates my ignorance, I can only imagine that there is a trade off of sorts. You get more partners, but you can never quite attain the sort of emotional bonds with them that you might get with an exclusive relationship.

-Alex [/b]
I have already addressed this question in my previous response to you,

Originally posted by [email protected]
I think i'll always be more 'attached' to A than i will anyone else, because we are best friends bar none. From that POV, C or D or E or whatever are not replacements for A, they're just other people to have sex and friendships with. Being in an open relationship doesn't mean that all other relationships have some kind of parity, they don't, in most cases (though of course this may change, i dont know) they are and will always be inferior to the relationship i have with A and from numerous discussions with A, it is the same way for them.

BD
Like, it assumes that A and B aren't already 'attached' to one another, as is the case in my relationship, that it is open does not mean we dont have an incredibly strong bond, it simply means we respect each others autonomy, to make decisions about ones' life or sexual relationships, so dont assume that open relationships are less serious than monogamous ones - that is completely fallacious.

BurnTheOliveTree

12th November 2006, 14:15

Black Dagger - The points are similar, but not quite the same. I'm sure you can have very strong bonds in an open relationship, I don't dispute that for a moment. I was just suggesting that that perhaps, when monogamy works, it has the edge over open relationships, when it works, due to the exclusivity itself. So whilst open relationships can still be wonderful, I can't help but wonder whether monogamy would always be that bit more wonderful, if you could suppress your feelings for others. My question is whether exclusivity is actually a desirable thing within itself.

-Alex

Forward Union

12th November 2006, 14:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:41 pm
Here is my question to you then. Is monogamy an ideal worth striving for? For all it's practical difficulties, is an exclusive relationship actually desirable?

I think it's a matter of personal preference. Personally I don't see it as something worth striving for, there are no obvious emotional benefits from being monogamous, it's not like you get a prize, and it certainly doesn't give you any sort of moral high-ground. I mean, you are almost suggesting that polysexuality is a bad thing, that we ought to escape, I'd say all forms of consensual love are precious. Some people get sucked into this social standard that monogamy is the only appropriate and happy way to live and consequently 'want' to be monogamous. If that's what you want, then go for it.

Socially speaking, we shouldn't strive for any form of normality. Monogamy as a social norm would be incredibly opressive, and autorotarian. We should really strive for "free love" as a social norm, so that anyone can love in any consentual way they want. This alows people to be monogomous, polysexual, whatever.

In a polysexual relationship, and perhaps this only demonstrates my ignorance, I can only imagine that there is a trade off of sorts. You get more partners, but you can never quite attain the sort of emotional bonds with them that you might get with an exclusive relationship.

Some forms of polysexual relationships are simply "sex collectives" of sorts, this sort of relationship is to-date, the steriotypical face of multi-partner bonds. Not that they are in any way lesser form of social cohabitation, it's just not what some people want. I will probably just sum up with what you expect me to say, multi-parter relationships can inolve equally deep and loving bonds as in a monogomous relationship.

Black Dagger

12th November 2006, 14:31

Originally posted by BTOT+--> (BTOT)I was just suggesting that that perhaps, when monogamy works, it has the edge over open relationships, when it works, due to the exclusivity itself. [/b]

Again, you're making fallacious assumptions.

You have to understand, not everybody likes exclusivity... so for people who reject monogamy, 'when monogamy works' is the same as all forms of monogamy... that is, it's still monogamy!!!

Monogamy can only ever have the edge over free love for people who PREFER monogamy, it can never be objectively 'better' because its a restrictve relationship type.

Originally posted by BTOT+--> (BTOT)
So whilst open relationships can still be wonderful, I can't help but wonder whether monogamy would always be that bit more wonderful, if you could suppress your feelings for others. [/b]

Again you are universalising the supposedly 'positive' nature of monogamy. Monogamy can ONLY be 'that bit more wonderful' for people who are content with suppressing their natural feelings and desires, and demanding from their 'lover' that they too, suppress their natural feelings and desires.

If that makes you happy, great - but not everyone is willing to enter into such a restrictive form of 'love', nor do they find the prospect in any way 'wonderful'.

[email protected]
My question is whether exclusivity is actually a desirable thing within itself.

IMO, no.

Reifying 'exclusivity' in turn reproduces jealousy, i dont find it all desireable to be forced or to force someone i love to deny their own feelings, desires or wishes. To subordinate their own desire and feelings 'for our love', that's transforming love into a property relationship.

You can't have any of them, they're mine! It's absurd.

Having sex or some kind of relationship with another person is their choice, as long as they are honest with me about it, i couldnt care less, i certainly have no 'right' to deny them this, to limit their personal autonomy for the sake of 'love' (that is a contradiction in terms), there is no condition (nor should there be) in our relationship which states i must have sole use of their sexual organs.

LU
We should really strive for "free love" as a social norm, so that anyone can love in any consentual way they want. This alows people to be monogomous, polysexual, whatever.

Exactly.

BurnTheOliveTree

12th November 2006, 16:35

Cool beans, thank you both for your responses.

Just to clear up any confusion, I was honestly just curious as to what your thoughts were, it wasn't an attack on polysexuality at all. I wouldn't want anyone to force monogamy or polysexuality on themselves if it didn't make them happy.

-Alex

The Bitter Hippy

12th November 2006, 16:56

oops, didn't notice a second page here. my post was made redundant.

sorry!

PaintTheSilence

12th November 2006, 23:07

To everyone who believes that monogamy is a waste of time:
What about love?
If you love someone with all the love in the world, surely you would intend on spending the rest of your life with them? What if the person you were in love with wanted marriage, and exclusive relationship. What if would mean the world to them to get married? What would you do?

To people in 'Open Relationships':
I don't think i'd ever have the self-confidence to be in an open relationship whilst in love, i'd get paranoid. Do you never wonder whether your partner has a stronger relationship with someone else? Would it not upset you if that were to occur? Surely that's not jealousy, just a natural human emotion - feeling hurt.

♥Peace.

Cryotank Screams

12th November 2006, 23:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 07:07 pm
Do you never wonder whether your partner has a stronger relationship with someone else? Would it not upset you if that were to occur? Surely that's not jealousy, just a natural human emotion - feeling hurt.

I. No, because it's not about tallies, who likes who more it should be equal, you have to be honest with each of your partners, and tell them how feel, and don't lie or hide anything, just like a normal relationship.

II. No it wouldn't, if it's not working it's not working; I would leave the person and find someone else.

12th November 2006, 23:23

I think the male leftist desire to smash committed monogamy is in fact reactionary.

I read a good comment about this in Cde. Wilkerson's review of fellow weather underground leader, Cde. Ayer's memoirs:

During the mid and late 1960s women came both to the arts scene and the movement, and later the hippie culture, to take advantage of new intellectual opportunities, to explore and validate our own sexuality and to stumble, fall, and argue our way into new roles in relationships, families, and work. But these steps were unevenly taken, and in many instances, the acceptance of freedom and experimentation became yet another license for exploitation and oppression. Thirty years later, many people have tried to sort these experiences out.

Yet Ayers relates his relentless sexual encounters without the slightest trace of awareness that some of these encounters might not have been so positive for the woman. Ayers was a white man with access to tremendous resources who aspired to leadership. He indicates no awareness that he might have used his privileges to provoke women to give him access to a vulnerability that he was unable to honor. Certainly, when he asserted his leadership quite forcefully, and when access to leadership was in part defined by “coolness”—coolness being defined by a small clique, with increasingly tight control over information—the pressure for women to consent was enormous. My complaint here is not primarily with his behavior at the time, when we were all experimenting with values and at the same time coping with the escalating violence of the government, with the result that our choices were not always well reasoned out, but with Ayers’s absolute lack of reflection since then, especially in the face of numerous attempts by women to explain—in conferences, writing and conversations—what it was like is mystifying.

Mujer Libre

13th November 2006, 00:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 11:23 pm
I think the male leftist desire to smash committed monogamy is in fact reactionary.

I read a good comment about this in Cde. Wilkerson's review of fellow weather underground leader, Cde. Ayer's memoirs:

During the mid and late 1960s women came both to the arts scene and the movement, and later the hippie culture, to take advantage of new intellectual opportunities, to explore and validate our own sexuality and to stumble, fall, and argue our way into new roles in relationships, families, and work. But these steps were unevenly taken, and in many instances, the acceptance of freedom and experimentation became yet another license for exploitation and oppression. Thirty years later, many people have tried to sort these experiences out.

Yet Ayers relates his relentless sexual encounters without the slightest trace of awareness that some of these encounters might not have been so positive for the woman. Ayers was a white man with access to tremendous resources who aspired to leadership. He indicates no awareness that he might have used his privileges to provoke women to give him access to a vulnerability that he was unable to honor. Certainly, when he asserted his leadership quite forcefully, and when access to leadership was in part defined by “coolness”—coolness being defined by a small clique, with increasingly tight control over information—the pressure for women to consent was enormous. My complaint here is not primarily with his behavior at the time, when we were all experimenting with values and at the same time coping with the escalating violence of the government, with the result that our choices were not always well reasoned out, but with Ayers’s absolute lack of reflection since then, especially in the face of numerous attempts by women to explain—in conferences, writing and conversations—what it was like is mystifying.

What about the female leftist desire to smash (compulsory) monogamy? :rolleyes:

And I woudn't use the weather underground as a good example of how to do non-monogamy. For example, they were hierarchical- so abuse of power was an issue. And clearly there were issues of gender inequality which make poly relationships potentially dangerous. I wouldn't extrapolate that situation (also because it is dated) to every poly relationship, and every male leftist who doesn't want monogamy. Not all of them are into exploiting their male privilege as much as members of the WU. :lol:

apathy maybe

13th November 2006, 01:10

No one wants to smash monogamy, unless it is forced. We want people to have whatever relationship type they want, be it monogamy, polygamy or some other form of multiple relationship.

There is no problem with monogamy, unless it is forced.

What you have posted has got nothing to do with monogamy, but rather about how those in power miss-use their power. It is an argument for anarchism, it shows problems with power, rather then being an argument for monogamy.

It is still relevent, just not to this debate.

colonelguppy

13th November 2006, 07:38

i don't really have an opinion. its pretty lame that the government makes you ask for permission first before you do it though.

encephalon

13th November 2006, 07:58

marriage is a tax break and nothing more.

Patchd

13th November 2006, 08:58

so youre saying a kid would have no problem growing up without a father or mother? you sure know a lot

I didn't have a problem :D

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 14:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 11:07 pm
To everyone who believes that monogamy is a waste of time:
What about love?
Loves not a waste of time, its a natural and enjoyable human emotion.

If you love someone with all the love in the world, surely you would intend on spending the rest of your life with them?

I always used to think that about people I loved, the reality is, you get over it and fall out of love with people after time. That's been my experience, but let's say you did love someone forever, why is this a trait exclusively linked to monogamy? and what about if you love two people with all your heart, surely you would want to spend the rest of your life with them?

What if the person you were in love with wanted marriage, and exclusive relationship. What if would mean the world to them to get married? What would you do?

These problems work both ways (what if your partner wanted an open relationship) you either have to compromise, agree to their suggestion or split up, I would have thought that was obvious? Your point really dosn't say anything.

Do you never wonder whether your partner has a stronger relationship with someone else? Would it not upset you if that were to occur?

I know that my partners have done things with other people, and know who, I know when, I know the details. And no, it doesn't bother me. I don't know if their relationships with others are stronger, I don't know how you would measure that.

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 14:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 11:23 pm
I think the male leftist desire to smash committed monogamy is in fact reactionary.

No one wants to smash committed monogamy.

The left should however want to smash any form of socially enforced relationship pattern, whether that is enforced Monogamy or enforced Polysexuality, or hetronormitivism, or whatever, because we support everyone's right to love on their own consensual terms. Theres nothing reactionary about that. In fact most of the famous proponants of a 'free love society', are women.

Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that any form of society that isn't accepting of any form of consensual relationship (a free love society) would be a dystopian, authoritarian nightmare. Surely that's not what you propose tc? You don't want to ban forms of consensual love that aren't monogamous do you? if not, then we agree, and there's no more to say.

But you're correct to an extent, I prefer a polysexual lifestyle because it is sexually pleasing to me as a male, presumably the vast scores of females that choose to live like it, do so for the same reasons. That's not to say that all polysexual relationships are fuelled by sexual desire alone.

Nothing Human Is Alien

13th November 2006, 15:21

Didn't you all know, Engels was a hardcore reactionary..

See The Monogamous Family (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm)

When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society ... it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.

.. and so is nature.

See Deflating the myth of monogamy (http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm) by David P. Barash.

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 15:36

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 13, 2006 02:16 pm
The left should however want to smash any form of socially enforced relationship pattern, whether that is enforced Monogamy or enforced Polysexuality, or hetronormitivism, or whatever, because we support everyone's right to love on their own consensual terms.
Contradictory. You don't want society to set any norms, but you want society to support...

As probably the only married person here, let me opine.

First of all, I seriously doubt most of you have much to worry about in this regard, at least in the near term.

Second, marriage is not easy and it's quite a commitment, which explains why most of you are opposed to it. But it is extremely rewarding to know that you have someone to rely on. I would imagine, personally, that this would not exist at as high a level in an open relationship, where one of your partners could leave at any time for someone else (which of course is still a risk in a marriage, but you gotta have trust).

It isn't for everyone and if you can't do it or don't want to do it, then don't. I have no problem with whatever relationships anyone wants to have so long as it's consentual and it isn't destructive.

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 15:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:36 pm
Contradictory. You don't want society to set any norms, but you want society to support...

..a society that doesn't enforce any norms. There are no contradictions here, just the ones you invent with semantics.

Second, marriage is not easy and it's quite a commitment, which explains why most of you are opposed to it. But it is extremely rewarding to know that you have someone to rely on.

Yea, it is, but the person is no more or less reliable, whether I decide to go through a man made artificial process with no scientific connection to my biological relationship. or not.

And you don't think a polysexual relationship with people who live in another city is a commitment?

(which of course is still a risk in a marriage, but you gotta have trust).

Exactly, it's a risk with all forms of relationship, the deciding factor is the nature of the person you associate with.

It isn't for everyone and if you can't do it or don't want to do it, then don't. I have no problem with whatever relationships anyone wants to have so long as it's consentual and it isn't destructive.

Which is what I was arguing. The logical conclusion from what you have said would therefore place you in opposition to any system that didn't let people love how they want, and punished certain groups for things like consensual polysexual relationships. In that case, you can forget the semantic paradox. Saying that society should not enforce any norms by enforcing a free society, makes sense in practical terms.

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 15:54

..a society that doesn't enforce any norms. There are no contradictions here, just the ones you invent with semantics.

The non-enforcement of norms is a norm. It's contradictory because it's impossible to not have norms. Your opinion that it is is entirely irrelevant.

Yea, it is, but the person is no more or less reliable, whether I decide to go through a man made artificial process with no scientific connection to my biological relationship. or not.

Actually there is scientific data to support marriage. Like a lot of other higher-level animals, humans generally seek life-long partnerships; though strict monogamy is not entirely supported by science.

And you don't think a polysexual relationship with people who live in another city is a commitment?

Sure, but I don't see how it rises up to the level of exclusive monogamy.

Which is what I was arguing. The logical conclusion from what you have said would therefore place you in opposition to any system that didn't let people love how they want, and punished certain groups for things like consensual polysexual relationships. In that case, you can forget the semantic paradox. Saying that society should not enforce any norms by enforcing a free society, makes sense in practical terms.

As far as what I advocate yes, we generally agree. But that would still be a norm enforced by society. I know you really really want it to not be that way because "no norms!" is like totally revolutionary and totally sticks it to the man, but in reality you're just replacing one norm with another.

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 16:05

Actually there is scientific data to support marriage.

You mean like the divorce statistics? or perhaps the adultery ones? Lifelong partnerships (which could be polysexual), and marriage are not the same thing. One can have a life long partnership and not go through the artificial process of marriage. No animals put on a dress, and undergo some archaic ceremony to make this bond "more real" its a process limited not even to our species alone, but to a section of it who cannot outgrow the tradition, or are in some way poisened by religion.

Sure, but I don't see how it rises up to the level of exclusive monogamy.

The question is, why take on such a pointless challenge. It's like the people that remain celibate or fast. If you want to, fine, but it's in no way above a lifestyle that avoids such struggles.

As far as what I advocate yes, we generally agree. But that would still be a norm enforced by society. I know you really really want it to not be that way because "no norms!" is like totally revolutionary and totally sticks it to the man, but in reality you're just replacing one norm with another

But a norm that says,' no norms' isn't a really norm in any real sense. There would be no socially-enforcable trends, you are picking up paradoxes in the language im using, not the society I advocate, if that makes sense. If we choose to call this idea of "do what you want, so long as its consensual" a norm, then so be it, it's semantic and at the end of the day I cant be bothered to have a discussion about this with someone I generally agree with!

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 16:13

Oy vey.

You mean like the divorce statistics? or perhaps the adultery ones? Lifelong partnerships (which could be polysexual), and marriage are not the same thing. One can have a life long partnership and not go through the artificial process of marriage...

Even with your limited intellectual capacity you must understand that it's not a huge leap from a general tendency towards committed partnerships towards marriage. But you're more interested in making a point about how marriage sucks because it's a dominant paradigm, so nevermind.

But a norm that says,' no norms' isn't a really norm in any real sense. There would be no socially-enforcable trends,

Yes there would. What happens the moment some religious fundy says the government should enact a law against polygamy or same-sex marriage? People like you would be screeching that your society is open to all relationships, which is a norm, which you would want government or society to continue to enforce.

You're too committed to being against norms for the sake of being against norms to understand or accept that. Please understand that your misguided opinion on this matter is irrelevant, you're simply replacing one norm with another and there isn't any slogan you can spout to change that.

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 17:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:13 pm
you must understand that it's not a huge leap from a general tendency towards committed partnerships towards marriage.
and even with the 14th century views you have toward the weight things like superstions carry, you should have been able to make a post that didn't avoid my entire argument.

That no matter how easy it is to make a link between "marriage" and "committed relationships" they are not the same thing, one exists despite the other, and one of them is a fairytale, backward, archaic ritual, with no real, material reason for existence.

Do it if you want, but it's a load of bunk.

You're too committed to being against norms for the sake of being against norms to understand or accept that. Please understand that your misguided opinion on this matter is irrelevant, you're simply replacing one norm with another and there isn't any slogan you can spout to change that.

To make life easier for you, if that's the language you wish to adopt, then I have to say I support that specific 'norm'. :rolleyes:

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 18:09

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 13, 2006 05:19 pm
and even with the 14th century views you have
What views do you imagine I have, specifically?

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 18:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:09 pm
What views do you imagine I have, specifically?
Didn't you go through with some voodoo hocus-pocus ritual to make your partnership with your wife more valuable, credible, and in your own words "extremely rewarding" ? (to know that; now you are married, your partner is magically more reliable)

Seems fairly archaic and backward to me, granted it's your own choice to do so, and I would normally not make a judgement as to not alarm or alienate my company, but since you raised the point....

Unless I have misunderstood, and you got married for financial reasons. In which, case, I understand

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 18:32

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 13, 2006 06:29 pm--> (Love Underground @ November 13, 2006 06:29 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2006 06:09 pm
What views do you imagine I have, specifically?
Didn't you go through with some voodoo hocus-pocus ritual to make your partnership with your wife more valuable, credible, and in your own words "extremely rewarding" ? (to know that; now you are married, your partner is magically more reliable)

Seems fairly archaic and backward to me, granted it's your own choice to do so, and I would normally not make a judgement as to not alarm or alienate my company, but since you raised the point....

Unless I have misunderstood, and you got married for financial reasons. In which, case, I understand [/b]
Ah.

Yes, I went through a hocus-pocus ritual though to be fair it had very little hocus pocus in it, far less than most such rituals contain.

I did it primarily because it's tradition. Tradition is not all bad, as long as it's not confused with dogma. I also did it for spiritual reasons; you do understand that even non-Christians believe people have spiritual needs.

I also, admittedly, did it because of the large party that comes afterward.

I don't think it made my partner more reliable, she was plenty reliable to begin with. The financial stuff certainly doesn't hurt.

Nothing Human Is Alien

13th November 2006, 18:42

You both passed up the materialist understanding of marriage that I posted earlier in favor of a "traditional nonsense vs. postermodernist nonsense" debate.

Engel's work is extraordinarily important in understanding marriage.

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 18:49

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2006 06:42 pm
You both passed up the materialist understanding of marriage that I posted earlier in favor of a "traditional nonsense vs. postermodernist nonsense" debate.

Engel's work is extraordinarily important in understanding marriage.
Looked like typical po-mo boilerplate theory crap to me, though I'd agree that the family changes with society.

You're not into radical feminist BS are you?

Forward Union

13th November 2006, 21:54

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2006 06:42 pm
You both passed up the materialist understanding of marriage that I posted earlier in favor of a "traditional nonsense vs. postermodernist nonsense" debate.

What's postmodern about my point of view? And why is that necessarily bad?

Engel's work is extraordinarily important in understanding marriage.

To be honest I've never taken the time to read it. In the two instances I've heard it cited it's been used to back two contrary points (that monogomy is the only natural form of relationship for humans - and in this thread, stating that it's not), so I don't have a fucking clue what it's about.

And I don't have the time to read it, so I may well agree with it! But I can't comment, if you would be kind enough to sumarise it, I'd be gtateful.

Cryotank Screams

14th November 2006, 01:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 11:36 am
Second, marriage is not easy and it's quite a commitment, which explains why most of you are opposed to it.
My question is, if your love is worth anything at all, why would you need a terribly binding and degrading ceremony to commemorate that and hold it together? What is the general and specific purpose of marriage? Can you tell me that?

I'm not afraid of commitment, I have been with my boyfriends for 5 years now, in a serious and closed relationship mind you, and things keep getting better and better, why would I want to screw that up with marriage which just adds more stress to everything, and basically shits all over the relationship?

t_wolves_fan

14th November 2006, 15:11

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 14, 2006 01:13 am

My question is, if your love is worth anything at all, why would you need a terribly binding and degrading ceremony to commemorate that and hold it together? What is the general and specific purpose of marriage? Can you tell me that?

I'm not afraid of commitment, I have been with my boyfriends for 5 years now, in a serious and closed relationship mind you, and things keep getting better and better, why would I want to screw that up with marriage which just adds more stress to everything, and basically shits all over the relationship?
I think it's probably up to us, and not you, to decide if our ceremony was "degrading" and the results of it "terribly binding"; don't you agree? Or have you been made high priest/priestess of judging others' relationships by some authority I haven't yet heard of?

We did it as a show of commitment to our families, our friends, and one another. I have this ring on my finger to remind me of her. When I'm having a bad day, when I'm stuck in traffic or when the goddamn Vikings are losing a game they should win I play with my ring and remember it doesn't matter because I have her.

If you don't want that or need that in your life then bravo, good for you. Unlike a lot of other people, including yourself, I'm not hypocritical enough to ***** at people for judging my relationship in one breath while judging others' relationships in the next.

But I will ask this: if 5 years with your boyfriend has been good, and it's getting better and better, why would putting rings on your fingers and officially affirming your relationship add any stress?

Cryotank Screams

14th November 2006, 23:00

Or have you been made high priest/priestess of judging others' relationships by some authority I haven't yet heard of?

Why yes; I am High priest SH, :D .

Furthermore looking at the concept, history, and such of marriage, and taking into account modern societal pressures, views, and such of marriages, I would assume that I do indeed have at least intellectual authority to give my own opinion on the matter, if it strikes an obviously vulnerable nerve with you, I am sorry.

I have this ring on my finger to remind me of her. When I'm having a bad day, when I'm stuck in traffic or when the goddamn Vikings are losing a game they should win I play with my ring and remember it doesn't matter because I have her.

Wow, how terribly shallow, you need some essentially worthless trinket about your finger to know and remind you of your love, and how you apparently have ownership of her.

But I will ask this: if 5 years with your boyfriend has been good, and it's getting better and better, why would putting rings on your fingers and officially affirming your relationship add any stress?

First off, I couldn't get married because apparently same-sex marriage is shitting on the "sanctity of marriage," and also I have 3 boyfriends, and polygamy is illegal so that to is an impossibility.

However even if I could get married I wouldn't because societal standards place mounds of stress on married couples, you have to do this and that and the other thing, and you are expected of certain things, and in general the whole concept of it is much like being in bondage, instead of being in love, and it's pointless.

Marriage is a relationship for the insecure.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 14:51

Furthermore looking at the concept, history, and such of marriage, and taking into account modern societal pressures, views, and such of marriages, I would assume that I do indeed have at least intellectual authority to give my own opinion on the matter, if it strikes an obviously vulnerable nerve with you, I am sorry.

You needn't worry about that, as your opinion like that of every other person on an internet message board is entirely your own and entirely irrelevant to pretty much anything beyond my own entertainment.

Wow, how terribly shallow, you need some essentially worthless trinket about your finger to know and remind you of your love, and how you apparently have ownership of her.

:lol:

Your attempt to bait me is humorous. I find it difficult to believe that even in your far superior relationship you don't have some kind of symbolic possession. Perhaps a meaningful gift or something you built or bought together. But it's irrelevant anyway. I for one am glad to have my essentially worthless trinket (though actually it's quite valuable should we ever be in a financial pinch ;) ) and really, isn't that what it's all about? Shouldn't I do what I want to enjoy my relationship regardless of your opinion, or are you in charge of determining how I should enjoy it? If so, how is that any different than society's judgement of you?

And the second clause, ownership? Where do you get that? You seem to be projecting your own opinion of the flaws of marriage onto my relationship, which is quite arrogant. Why would you do that?

First off, I couldn't get married because apparently same-sex marriage is shitting on the "sanctity of marriage," and also I have 3 boyfriends, and polygamy is illegal so that to is an impossibility.

I'm sorry to hear that and I don't agree that your marrying someone of the same sex has anything to do with the sanctity of marriage.

However even if I could get married I wouldn't because societal standards place mounds of stress on married couples, you have to do this and that and the other thing, and you are expected of certain things, and in general the whole concept of it is much like being in bondage, instead of being in love, and it's pointless.

This is a curious complaint coming from someone who apparently claims to not really care what society thinks. Why are you afraid of something you claim to not care about?

Marriage is a relationship for the insecure.

For some yes, that's the case. But then those folks married for the wrong reason.

Dazzle me with more projection of radical feminist analysis, it's highly entertaining.

Cryotank Screams

15th November 2006, 21:47

This is a curious complaint coming from someone who apparently claims to not really care what society thinks. Why are you afraid of something you claim to not care about?

I personally couldn't care less, however my boyfriends would/do, they aren’t like me and the very opposite of me in that regard.

find it difficult to believe that even in your far superior relationship

Never said it was superior, I was just commenting on marriage in general; thank you.

you don't have some kind of symbolic possession.

No, not really, sure they have given me gifts, like roses, and such, however I don't place any substantial meaning on the item, they know this, and I know this, infact if their gifts would to be destroyed, I wouldn't care that much, why? Because I am with them, and being with them, is all I need, I don't need any material fodder to remind me of our love.

Shouldn't I do what I want to enjoy my relationship regardless of your opinion, or are you in charge of determining how I should enjoy it?

No, I was simply commenting on a degrading, archaic, and pointless practice; calm down, and get over it.

And the second clause, ownership? Where do you get that?

it doesn't matter because I have her.

See above quote.

Dazzle me with more projection of radical feminist analysis, it's highly entertaining.

I fail to see how my opinions are feministic, and if they are so what, who gives a fuck? Furthermore my whole view on marriage can be summed up in the following quote.

"The horror of wedlock, the most appalling, the most loathsome of all the bonds humankind has devised for its own discomfort and degradation."-Marquis de Sade.

What I find entertaining is that when debating, you can’t simply debate you have to throw in bits here and there and give off the false sense that what is being said is amusing, and that you claim that you are debating dimwits and a variety of other names, when it is very clear that you are the idiot, otherwise you wouldn't have to say anything about us; to put it shortly it’s immature, pointless, and idiotic, that is what I find entertaining.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 21:59

This is a curious complaint coming from someone who apparently claims to not really care what society thinks. Why are you afraid of something you claim to not care about?

I personally couldn't care less, however my boyfriends would/do, they aren’t like me and the very opposite of me in that regard.

So you wouldn't want to marry because it's your boyfriends who are afraid of the societal pressure of marriage?

What societal pressures are there on gay marriage, out of curiosity?

find it difficult to believe that even in your far superior relationship

Never said it was superior,

Sure you did. You've referred to the ceremony as hocus pocus, you've referred to wedding rings as useless junk and stated that my valuing it must mean my relationship is weak, and you've suggested it has something to do with me owning my wife.

Do you really think you've haven't tried to insinuate that your relationship is superior to mine? Do you expect me to believe you haven't thought your own relationship is superior to mine as you sit at your computer?

Shouldn't I do what I want to enjoy my relationship regardless of your opinion, or are you in charge of determining how I should enjoy it?

No, I was simply commenting on a degrading, archaic, and pointless practice; calm down, and get over it.

There it is. Marriage is degrading, archaic, and pointless; but you didn't mean to suggest that what you do is superior in any way.

Got it. :lol:

And the second clause, ownership? Where do you get that?

it doesn't matter because I have her.

See above quote.

Yes. I have her in my life. That suggests a sense of ownership to you? Or are you projecting your own definition of marriage onto what I said?

:huh:

Jazzratt

15th November 2006, 22:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 09:59 pm
Yes. I have her in my life. That suggests a sense of ownership to you? Or are you projecting your own definition of marriage onto what I said?

:huh:
To be fair on Scarlet Hammer you did use the word have which is often used to denote possesion and thus could easily be taken that way. Also marriage does have overtones of ownership to it, especially in how the partners must be "true" to each other not out of love for each other but respect for some outdated farce.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 22:09

To be fair on Scarlet Hammer you did use the word have which is often used to denote possesion and thus could easily be taken that way.

You have got to be kidding me.

Also marriage does have overtones of ownership to it, especially in how the partners must be "true" to each other not out of love for each other but respect for some outdated farce.

From that angle all relationships have overtones of ownership, even friendships. Friendship generally requires that friends be "true" to one another, do they not?

This is what happens when people waaaaaaaaay overanalyze things and look for evil for the sake of finding evil.

Jazzratt

15th November 2006, 22:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 10:09 pm

To be fair on Scarlet Hammer you did use the word have which is often used to denote possesion and thus could easily be taken that way.

You have got to be kidding me.
Nope. It's an understandable mistake as people often use it in that fashion.

Also marriage does have overtones of ownership to it, especially in how the partners must be "true" to each other not out of love for each other but respect for some outdated farce.

From that angle all relationships have overtones of ownership, even friendships. Friendship generally requires that friends be "true" to one another, do they not? Yes, but no one is made to enter into some kind of 'binding contract' it's just assumed. Marriage adds a whole layer of farcical pomp and harmful attitudes of duty.

This is what happens when people waaaaaaaaay overanalyze things and look for evil for the sake of finding evil. It's not really overanylsing. It's pretty much a surface analysis. I could probably come back with more in a week or so.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 22:20

Nope. It's an understandable mistake as people often use it in that fashion.

No it isn't. It's a desperate plea by someone who thinks marriage means ownership to find a scrap of a sentence by a married person that will support his/her ridiculous opinion.

Yes, but no one is made to enter into some kind of 'binding contract' it's just assumed. Marriage adds a whole layer of farcical pomp and harmful attitudes of duty.

No one is made to enter into a marriage, so what precisely is your point?

It's not really overanylsing. It's pretty much a surface analysis. I could probably come back with more in a week or so.

It's "surface analysis" from an ideological point of view that seeks evil in anything currently established as a norm, nothing else. But I look forward to your quality analysis.

Jazzratt

15th November 2006, 22:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 10:20 pm

Nope. It's an understandable mistake as people often use it in that fashion.

No it isn't. It's a desperate plea by someone who thinks marriage means ownership to find a scrap of a sentence by a married person that will support his/her ridiculous opinion.
How did you ever get a job as "Lord High Privy Chancellor of Policy" or whatever if you don't understand the nuances of the english fucking language?

Yes, but no one is made to enter into some kind of 'binding contract' it's just assumed. Marriage adds a whole layer of farcical pomp and harmful attitudes of duty.

No one is made to enter into a marriage, so what precisely is your point? No one needs to. Its existance is pointless, and as soon as they enter it they face a stigma if they choose to leave.

It's not really overanylsing. It's pretty much a surface analysis. I could probably come back with more in a week or so.

It's "surface analysis" from an ideological point of view that seeks evil in anything currently established as a norm, You see ideological bias where there is none. I had these views on marriage long before leftism was my ideology.
nothing else. But I look forward to your quality analysis. Why should I bother. Marx & Engels pretty much have it covered.

Cryotank Screams

15th November 2006, 22:45

So you wouldn't want to marry because it's your boyfriends who are afraid of the societal pressure of marriage?

Yes, and no, I know that they wouldn't want rebel against society, therefore would probably give into the whole traditional thinking and such associated with marriage, also I wouldn't want to marry because I am against it both in theory, and in practice.

What societal pressures are there on gay marriage, out of curiosity?

Do you even have to ask? Are you not caught up on current events? Gay marriages would and often do have added pressure, because they have to fight and strive to be a perfect super couple in order to seem valid, and true, to society.

Do you really think you've haven't tried to insinuate that your relationship is superior to mine?

I don't think, I know I haven't implied my relationship was superior jackass,

Do you expect me to believe you haven't thought your own relationship is superior to mine as you sit at your computer?

Do you really expect me to give two shits when I already told you twice now, I never said nor did I imply that my relationship was better.

There it is. Marriage is degrading, archaic, and pointless; but you didn't mean to suggest that what you do is superior in any way.

What do you mean what I do? I just have a normal relationship, get the fuck over it, I never said or implied my relationship is superior.

That suggests a sense of ownership to you? Or are you projecting your own definition of marriage onto what I said?

See below post.

To be fair on Scarlet Hammer you did use the word have which is often used to denote possesion and thus could easily be taken that way. Also marriage does have overtones of ownership to it, especially in how the partners must be "true" to each other not out of love for each other but respect for some outdated farce.

The above explains exactly how I interpreted your post.

Jazzratt

15th November 2006, 22:49

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 15, 2006 10:45 pm
See below post.

To be fair on Scarlet Hammer you did use the word have which is often used to denote possesion and thus could easily be taken that way. Also marriage does have overtones of ownership to it, especially in how the partners must be "true" to each other not out of love for each other but respect for some outdated farce.

The above explains exactly how I interpreted your post.
Ah, that's good. I was afraid I was going to be treading on your toes or something, mate.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 23:59

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 15, 2006 10:45 pm

Yes, and no, I know that they wouldn't want rebel against society, therefore would probably give into the whole traditional thinking and such associated with marriage, also I wouldn't want to marry because I am against it both in theory, and in practice.

Makes sense.

Do you even have to ask? Are you not caught up on current events? Gay marriages would and often do have added pressure, because they have to fight and strive to be a perfect super couple in order to seem valid, and true, to society.

Which is bullshit, unfortunately (that society would view it that way).

To be fair on Scarlet Hammer you did use the word have which is often used to denote possesion and thus could easily be taken that way. Also marriage does have overtones of ownership to it, especially in how the partners must be "true" to each other not out of love for each other but respect for some outdated farce.

The above explains exactly how I interpreted your post.

Exactly, because you negatively view marriage for its imagined "ownership" overtones, you seek confirmation of that view.

Frankly I don't even know what we're arguing over anymore.

:D

uber-liberal

18th November 2006, 09:14

T-wloves-fan: hyper feminist BS. What are you specifically refering to here?

Taiga

18th November 2006, 10:44

Having a married boyfriend myself, I must say there is no sense in marriage.

Forward Union

18th November 2006, 10:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 10:44 am
Having a married boyfriend myself, I must say there is no sense in marriage.
Do you mean you have married your boyfriend? or that your boyfriend is married to someone else?

Taiga

18th November 2006, 11:05

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 18, 2006 01:50 pm--> (Love Underground @ November 18, 2006 01:50 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2006 10:44 am
Having a married boyfriend myself, I must say there is no sense in marriage.
Do you mean you have married your boyfriend? or that your boyfriend is married to someone else? [/b]
He is married to someone else. As I see, the fact of marriage didn't help to keep their family. Moreover, I suppose the divorse won't be easy at all.

Forward Union

18th November 2006, 11:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 11:05 am
He is married to someone else.
hahaha cool. :lol:

As I see, the fact of marriage didn't help to keep their family. Moreover, I suppose the divorse won't be easy at all.

Exactly, marriage dosn't help because it's not real, it's a superstition. If a couple have a deacent relationship it dosn't matter if they are married or not, they will stay together.

Capitalist Lawyer

18th November 2006, 22:25

All I'm gonna say about this subject is that...it's better to begin a sentence with, "My wife", "My family", or "Yes, I am married"...

...rather than, "I didn't see you at the Aerosmith Concert or at the strip club last night maaaaaannnnn!!!" "There were some fine ass *****es there!!"

"And did you go to the protest last night maaaaaann!!!"

Cryotank Screams

18th November 2006, 23:31

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18, 2006 06:25 pm
All I'm gonna say about this subject is that...it's better to begin a sentence with, "My wife", "My family", or "Yes, I am married"...

...rather than, "I didn't see you at the Aerosmith Concert or at the strip club last night maaaaaannnnn!!!" "There were some fine ass *****es there!!"

"And did you go to the protest last night maaaaaann!!!"
You ignorance and naivety of this subject amuses me, so does your poor attempts at being funny.

LuXe

18th November 2006, 23:36

Agreed.

However marriage is of religious background, and before it there was no need for commitment at all.

I see it so that if I love a woman so much, I dont see the need for some "Holy pact" to bring us together. If the love we share isnt enough, and we need this "holy pact" to be together, we shouldnt get married in the first place.

Capitalist Lawyer

19th November 2006, 01:03

You ignorance and naivety of this subject amuses me, so does your poor attempts at being funny.

Oh, lemme guess? You're part of the camp that perceives the phrase "Grow up" as a thinly disguised euphmemism that really says, "Learn to like the taste of shit!"?

People who don't get married or establish families are just running away from any sort of committment in their lives. Seriously, what else are you going to do with your life? Study? Go to strip clubs? Play music? Paint pictures?

Yawn!

Have you ever ran into anybody over 40 years old and isn't married? It's a very sad encounter if you ask me.

I see it so that if I love a woman so much, I dont see the need for some "Holy pact" to bring us together. If the love we share isnt enough, and we need this "holy pact" to be together, we shouldnt get married in the first place.

Wayyyyy tooooo much...too much mental masturbation.

If you don't want to have a religious marriage ceremony, then "Shotgun Pete's" in Las Vegas, NV is all but a plane ticket away.

Raisa

19th November 2006, 05:56

I dont think there is anything wrong with being married, I just think it is a committment between two people who want to stick together through the struggle.
Capitalism teaches people to dispose of each other when convienient. Marriage is saying there is a person in the world who is down for you whatever.
I think thats real shit. I dont think it has anything to do with a church or governmenty if you dont want it to. Its a commitment.

Taiga

19th November 2006, 21:33

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 18, 2006 02:28 pm--> (Love Underground @ November 18, 2006 02:28 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2006 11:05 am
He is married to someone else.
hahaha cool. :lol:
[/b]
No, it's not cool or funny, when your boyfriend is married and lives 1000 km away. :(

It's unthinkably painful. I'm totally depressed.

Cryotank Screams

19th November 2006, 21:45

People who don't get married or establish families are just running away from any sort of committment in their lives. Seriously, what else are you going to do with your life?

I'm not running away from anything thank you, like I said before I have been with my boyfreinds for 5 years and counting, ergo my relationship has lasted longer than some marriages have; if not getting married means you have wasted your life than you are shallow and pathetic.

Paint pictures?

I'm an artist so yes I paint.

Study?
Yes, I study, don't you? Or do you just like living in ignorance?

Play music?

Yea, I play music, I have been trained classically in the Bass, or are you against music?

Yawn!

Yet another sad attempt at humor, come back when you can actually debate, ok?

Jazzratt

19th November 2006, 22:11

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19, 2006 01:03 am
People who don't get married or establish families are just running away from any sort of committment in their lives.
Pure bollocks. They are not running away from "any sort" of commitment, they're "running away" from one kind that needn't exist anyway. You can still be commited to raising children, to staying with your partner(s) and so on without going through the ritual of marriage. Lots of people who aren't married aren't commited. For example I'd say that chaste priets (though stupid fucking ****s) are in fact very commited to their invisible sky fairy.

Seriously, what else are you going to do with your life? Study? Go to strip clubs? Play music? Paint pictures? That's stupid and defeatist. You could work toward universal emancipation of the proletariat, you could play music or paint pictures. You could study something new, you could in fact do anything a married person could do except perhaps spend time with your wife/husband, which is entirely meaningless if you spend time with your partner(s) anyway and raise children with your partner(s)

Have you ever ran into anybody over 40 years old and isn't married? It's a very sad encounter if you ask me. I met a guy who was 33 and in his second marriage, he was always stressed and had to spread all his time about trying to look after kids and keep payments on houses AND study music. A couple of my mate's are over 40 but they sure as fuck don't seem bothered at being unmarried, they've got better stuff to worry about. But that's just anecdotes (as you asked for).
Personally I think it's worse to run into some guy in their forties who is ostensibly happily married but wants nothing more than to get out of it or even worse a woman who is married simply becausethat's what society makes her, a woman that's a good wife and parent but has no real life of her own or a good wife and a go-getting careerist utterly dehumanised by our socity and exploiting hundreds at work whilst going home to be exploited.

Fuck your marriage.

I see it so that if I love a woman so much, I dont see the need for some "Holy pact" to bring us together. If the love we share isnt enough, and we need this "holy pact" to be together, we shouldnt get married in the first place.

Wayyyyy tooooo much...too much mental masturbation. Oh fuck off. If you don't have anything intellegent to say in response to the well thought out post then just go and hang yourself.

If you don't want to have a religious marriage ceremony, then "Shotgun Pete's" in Las Vegas, NV is all but a plane ticket away. That misses the fundamental point that all marriage is rooted in non materialist mystical bullshit and as an institution should have fallen to bits in the fucking enlightenment, so quite why we have it now - jacked up by your state - is completely beyond me.

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 19:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 10:11 pm
That misses the fundamental point that all marriage is rooted in non materialist mystical bullshit and as an institution should have fallen to bits in the fucking enlightenment, so quite why we have it now - jacked up by your state - is completely beyond me.
As usual Jazzrat we're just not as brilliant as you are and we need you to lead us out of the woods. For our own good.

:rolleyes:

Jazzratt

20th November 2006, 20:06

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 20, 2006 07:38 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 20, 2006 07:38 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 10:11 pm
That misses the fundamental point that all marriage is rooted in non materialist mystical bullshit and as an institution should have fallen to bits in the fucking enlightenment, so quite why we have it now - jacked up by your state - is completely beyond me.
As usual Jazzrat we're just not as brilliant as you are and we need you to lead us out of the woods. For our own good.

:rolleyes: [/b]
I was going to reply wit a slogan, to be ironic. But I think a football chant suits my needs better.

"You're SHIT and you know you are

You're SHIT and you know you are

You're SHIT and you know you are"

Or to put it another way:
This is not about me personally being better or worse than anyone else this is about an instituition being, as I said, rooted in mysticysm which has no place in politics.

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 20:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:06 pm
This is not about me personally being better or worse than anyone else this is about an instituition being, as I said, rooted in mysticysm which has no place in politics.
I agree with your last point, that political discussions should avoid personal issues such as marriage.

If people want to marry and base their relationship on this "mysticism" as you put it, should they be allowed to do so?

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 20:11

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 18, 2006 09:14 am
T-wloves-fan: hyper feminist BS. What are you specifically refering to here?
Radical feminism is B.S.

That's what I meant.

uber-liberal

20th November 2006, 20:58

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 20, 2006 08:11 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 20, 2006 08:11 pm)
uber-[email protected] 18, 2006 09:14 am
T-wloves-fan: hyper feminist BS. What are you specifically refering to here?
Radical feminism is B.S.

That's what I meant. [/b]
Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What, by your definition is radical feminism, matriarchy, women not taking their husbands' last names, what?

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 21:12

Originally posted by uber-liberal+November 20, 2006 08:58 pm--> (uber-liberal @ November 20, 2006 08:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:11 pm

uber-[email protected] 18, 2006 09:14 am
T-wloves-fan: hyper feminist BS. What are you specifically refering to here?
Radical feminism is B.S.

That's what I meant.
Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What, by your definition is radical feminism, matriarchy, women not taking their husbands' last names, what? [/b]
Ah. Apologies.

The whole premise on which the ideology lies, which is namely victimhood. Like most other ideologies, it pretends that every woman is a victim and every woman can and should think alike. Oh and of course that sex/gender are purely social constructions.

Basically, all of it.

:P

uber-liberal

20th November 2006, 22:56

See, I have more of an equitable outlook on it. Sure there's a glass ceiling, sure women have had the short end of the stick for centuries, and still do in many places. The key to true feminism is not victimhood, but empowerment and understanding.
a great many feminists I've met say the same trite shit about equality without the basic understanding that men and women are VERY different creatures. Indeed, we're opposite ends of the same stick. They spout out that both sexes should be treated the same, meaning they want men to treat women like they wan to be treated and they'll treat men the EXACT SAME. Think on that for a sec...
Understndably, what men hear is to treat women like one of the guys, which isn't going to work either. So we enter the Vicious Cycle...
Women should try to understand men just as much as men should try to understand women. Start there and THEN see where it takes you, I think.

Women shouting in megaphones demandin men subject themselves to the authority of women, though... there's fetish sites commited to that. Let's keep those adult-themed fantasies behind closed doors.

Forward Union

25th November 2006, 09:58

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19, 2006 01:03 am
People who don't get married or establish families are just running away from any sort of committment in their lives.
Well, to be honest, the ones that avoid the unnecessary hassle of children in a world where are population is literally booming seem to be fairly sensible. Not that having kids is a bad idea, but to accuse them of "running away" seems misleading, maybe they should be the ones laughing at you while you're changing your sons 'diper'?

But what interests me is this idea that non-married people are not committed. Firstly, what is commitment? and why is it inherently a good thing? Is being committed to pointless struggle for the sake of struggle, when in the case of marriage you no longer love your partner, the relationship is stagnant and depressing, noble and virtuous? or practical stupidity. After all I don't believe that when I die, my personal suffering for the greater good will ever be judged.

But this isn't really the point I want to argue. Lets go back to the first and ask again, what is commitment? It certainly can't be defined as "being married" because many married people, even with kids, are not committed. Furthermore, My partners live in completely different cities to me, I have to balance my finances to make sure I get to see them, I regularly have to sort our train times, accommodation food etc. It's a lot of time and effort to just see them, but it's worth it. The point is, that's commitment. I know many cohabitant couples who have been together for years, I know married couples that have been together for weeks.

So if marriage doesn't equal commitment, in reality it can be said that commitment exists despite marriage, then it must be something else that keeps some people together, that something is love.

Have you ever ran into anybody over 40 years old and isn't married? It's a very sad encounter if you ask me.

Yes, and they have been living with their girlfriend for 25 years.

Forward Union

25th November 2006, 10:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 09:33 pm
No, it's not cool or funny, when your boyfriend is married and lives 1000 km away. :(

It's unthinkably painful. I'm totally depressed.
Yea my partners live really far away, it doesn't get me too down, but I know how u feel.

Hiero

25th November 2006, 11:30

Taiga did your boyfriend's wife accept you as his girlfriend? If she didn't then the problem would be you and the man, not marriage.

LuXe

25th November 2006, 11:53

Wayyyyy tooooo much...too much mental masturbation.

If you don't want to have a religious marriage ceremony, then "Shotgun Pete's" in Las Vegas, NV is all but a plane ticket away.

The hell is wrong with you? That religious pact is not something of nature. Therefore we humans dont need it to "celebrate our love". Shotgun Petes, or wtf your brain is trying to say, would lower the bar MUCH more. If you at least read my post you would see that I actually see no need for ceremony at all, bacause if you need it to be with someone (as an assuring matter) you dont have enough confidence in your lady/man.

Stop beeing an asshole, and start thinking.

uber-liberal

25th November 2006, 11:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 11:53 am

Wayyyyy tooooo much...too much mental masturbation.

If you don't want to have a religious marriage ceremony, then "Shotgun Pete's" in Las Vegas, NV is all but a plane ticket away.

The hell is wrong with you? That religious pact is not something of nature. Therefore we humans dont need it to "celebrate our love". Shotgun Petes, or wtf your brain is trying to say, would lower the bar MUCH more. If you at least read my post you would see that I actually see no need for ceremony at all, bacause if you need it to be with someone (as an assuring matter) you dont have enough confidence in your lady/man.

Stop beeing an asshole, and start thinking.
It's not always a matter on assurance. Sometimes, and more often than not from what I've seen, it's a way to tell the world "we are in love". Sometimes you love someone so deep you have to shout it from the rooftops just to try and set your emotions at ease.

LuXe

25th November 2006, 12:01

It's not always a matter on assurance. Sometimes, and more often than not from what I've seen, it's a way to tell the world "we are in love". Sometimes you love someone so deep you have to shout it from the rooftops just to try and set your emotions at ease.
"Love" only lasts for a certain time. after which you aquire "care" for one. So it doesnt really cover it.

Emma Goldman said; "Thus Dante's motto over Inferno applies with equal force to marriage: "Ye who enter here leave all hope behind."

Rissen

26th November 2006, 02:01

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 20, 2006 11:56 pm
a great many feminists I've met say the same trite shit about equality without the basic understanding that men and women are VERY different creatures. Indeed, we're opposite ends of the same stick. They spout out that both sexes should be treated the same, meaning they want men to treat women like they wan to be treated and they'll treat men the EXACT SAME. Think on that for a sec...
Understndably, what men hear is to treat women like one of the guys, which isn't going to work either. So we enter the Vicious Cycle...

Women shouting in megaphones demandin men subject themselves to the authority of women, though... there's fetish sites commited to that. Let's keep those adult-themed fantasies behind closed doors.
According to your logic men and women should be treated as entirely different species! Are you saying that you are against the assumption of equality? Are you saying that when you meet a female, you should treat them differently to when you meet a male? This is what it looks like you are saying to me, and I find this discriminatory and judgemental.

Your last paragraph is even worse. You're implying that women are only the result of men's desires, that a woman can never aspire to anything more than something from which a man extracts pleasure.

Edit: On topic, I do not believe that monogamy should be any more enshrined in the law than other forms of relationship, because it is an individual's lifestyle choice...

Axel1917

1st December 2006, 16:35

I don't think it is necessary. The primary purpose of it serves the bourgeoisie and bureaucrats, allowing them to pass down property to their offspring, tracing the offspring and property through surname. A good deal of people are perhaps forced to marry in a a sense, as it tends to carry special status in captialist societies.

If I were to marry, I would not spend all kinds of money. I would just have a judge declare it. The money would go a long way in other things (house downpayment, family vehicle for carrying kids around, daycare, etc.).

All I'm gonna say about this subject is that...it's better to begin a sentence with, "My wife", "My family", or "Yes, I am married"...

...rather than, "I didn't see you at the Aerosmith Concert or at the strip club last night maaaaaannnnn!!!" "There were some fine ass *****es there!!"

"And did you go to the protest last night maaaaaann!!!"

Or work out perspectives, have serious discussions, etc. about the protest. I don't attend protests "just for the hell of it."

We did it as a show of commitment to our families, our friends, and one another. I have this ring on my finger to remind me of her. When I'm having a bad day, when I'm stuck in traffic or when the goddamn Vikings are losing a game they should win I play with my ring and remember it doesn't matter because I have her.

Heh. A lot of people here in Minnesota seem to get so obsessed and such about the Vikings (I don't mean to be offensive by this). My parents get too excited about that stuff, only to see them make really stupid mistakes and the like (I heard some guy ran some huge retrun, only to have a flag thrown on the play becasue some guy decided to do some kind of illegal block). I don't really understand this Vikings hype.

Rings? I don't know if such things are so much for me. Quite expensive. I would rather use the money for a new family car or something if I were to be married. I mean it is good to think if one's spoue and the like, but it is getting harder and harder to live.

uber-liberal

1st December 2006, 17:42

"Love" only lasts for a certain time. after which you aquire "care" for one. So it doesnt really cover it.

Emma Goldman said; "Thus Dante's motto over Inferno applies with equal force to marriage: "Ye who enter here leave all hope behind."

A man without romance... sad. I've been with my wife for 5 years now and still deeply love her and cherish her. I don't forsee a simbiotic relationship in our future. I dread the day I wake up and have no desire to embrace her, for then I am truly dead.

Love lasts, but you have to work at it. I look at my grandparents- married for 64 tears, and still as in love as in 1942- and hope I will have that in my golden years.

Forward Union

1st December 2006, 18:44

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 05:42 pm
A man without romance... sad. I've been with my wife for 5 years now and still deeply love her and cherish her. I don't forsee a simbiotic relationship in our future. I dread the day I wake up and have no desire to embrace her, for then I am truly dead.

Love lasts, but you have to work at it. I look at my grandparents- married for 64 tears, and still as in love as in 1942- and hope I will have that in my golden years.
In that case you and your grandparents are anomalies. I have been jumping partners all my life, (though I have had monogamous relationships at times, often lasting for several months)

And I love it.

uber-liberal

1st December 2006, 18:48

Originally posted by Love Underground+December 01, 2006 06:44 pm--> (Love Underground @ December 01, 2006 06:44 pm)
uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 05:42 pm
A man without romance... sad. I've been with my wife for 5 years now and still deeply love her and cherish her. I don't forsee a simbiotic relationship in our future. I dread the day I wake up and have no desire to embrace her, for then I am truly dead.

Love lasts, but you have to work at it. I look at my grandparents- married for 64 tears, and still as in love as in 1942- and hope I will have that in my golden years.
In that case you and your grandparents are anomalies. I have been jumping partners all my life, (though I have had monogamous relationships at times, often lasting for several months)

And I love it. [/b]
I don't think we're any more anomalous than you. Love is not some physical hormonal endorphen rush we mistake for romance. It's real. I'm proof.
And hey, if jumping from bed to bed truly makes you happy, good luck. I'm willing to bet, however, that somewhere you desire something different. A lack of monogamy isn't freedom. It's lifestyle slavery. I know. I'm proof.
And if you have had a relationship longer than a few months at age 18, you need to play the field more. Mormons settle down early, and if you're mormon you're in the WRONG place.