Reply
Thread Tools
Relationships and Infidelity None
Old 06-01-2008, 05:06 AM   #1
Malotis
Member [09%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 397
 
A relationship is nothing more than a bull shit title designed to restrict and regulate the sexual activity of the general population by encouraging monogamy through the idealist notion of "true love"- the ridiculous idea that if really you "truly loved someone" you only want to have sex with your partner and not anyone else.

Not that thereís anything wrong with monogamous relationships because there can be some advantages. But letís face reality for a second. Whether they know it or not, people are always going to want to have sex with more than one person. Therefore, faithful relationships are more or less the result of individuals not acting on this desire, whereas an unfaithful relationship involves individuals who do act on this desire.

How many people act on this natural desire?

"In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I find this statistic interesting because these cases only involve infidelity which results in an actual child. Now, taking into account all modern methods of birth control available, I would surmise that most of the time infidelity does not result in a child. Being as such, Iíd hate to think of the number of relationships which involve infidelity.

Personally, I've always been an advocate for sexual freedom. That is, being able to live in a world where people are to allowed to have sex with whomever they want and with as many partners as they want with out fear of negative connotations or judgments from either themselves or others. It is unfortunate, but for some reason society has created all these neagtive labels (I.E. slut, whore, skank, cunt, etc) for individuals who do not heed the social standard for sexual practices.
Malotis is offline
Reply With Quote

Old 06-01-2008, 06:56 AM   #2
Bioplasmoid
Member [25%]
"Intellect confuses Intuition" - Piet Mondrian
MBTI: xNTx
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,027
 
You say "the ridiculous idea that if really you 'truly loved someone' you only want to have sex with your partner and not anyone else. " as if it is some kind of order by society that you must adhere to. Have you ever considered that maybe people have monogamous sex, because their partner would get jealous if they slept with others? Jealousy and hatred are negative emotions, and people who love each other tend to not want to inflict emotional suffering upon their other half. Also because Love in the case of two people relationships tends to focus emotion and attention on only one other person apart from the individual, it follows that the individual chooses to focus the giving of pleasure upon just that one other also. Maybe I should have emphasised the word 'giving' just before. Sex and Love as a monogomous loop is a process of reciprocation not a process of only taking or only giving.

I think it is an incredibly arrogant assumption for you to make that people are (in all cases) always going to want to have sex with more than one person. How can you possibly speak for all of mankind on this?

You do have a good point though about modern contraception stopping pregnancy in instances of infidelity at this time in history. And yes it is also a shame that society has so many derogatory labels for those that choose quantity over quality. Fidelity is of course something that is up to the individual, and as individuals we all have a different perception of Love and how it relates to our own behaviour. Apologies if I have come across as overly emotional in this reply.
Bioplasmoid is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 07:03 AM   #3
sriv
Member [46%]
"We need to be the change we wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
MBTI: IxTJ
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,865
 
A good and healthy man-woman relationship has many strong points.

-Sex life
-Trust
-Sharing responsibilities
-Love (which emphasizes trust)
-Mutual understanding

These qualities of an intimate relationship are incredibly valuable and IMO shouldn't be passed up.

Now sex with other people, as purpleFnords said, can cause jealousy in one of the partners. This destroys the fragile structure of the monogamous relationship. It also invites secrecy and suspicion into the equation. Woman or man has an ego (maybe the man a little more) and always want to be "the favorite".
sriv is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 10:15 AM   #4
vaguely dissatisfied
Member [38%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,540
 
I agree that monogomy is probably a socially constructed idea. Speaking only for myself, it took until the age of 40 before I understood why anyone would limit themselves to one sexual partner for the rest of their lives. The bottom line for me (and I suspect most people) is trust issues.
vaguely dissatisfied is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 10:31 AM   #5
Mozzes
Veteran Member [50%]
 
MBTI: xxxx
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,008
 

  Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Personally, I've always been an advocate for sexual freedom. That is, being able to live in a world where people are to allowed to have sex with whomever they want and with as many partners as they want with out fear of negative connotations or judgments from either themselves or others. It is unfortunate, but for some reason society has created all these neagtive labels (I.E. slut, whore, skank, cunt, etc) for individuals who do not heed the social standard for sexual practices.

We pretty much live in this world already. Well, as long as you don't leave the first world. Personally I think there are monogamous people and there are non-monogamous people and most of the problems comes when these different types of people enter into a relationship.

Mozzes is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 10:50 AM   #6
Mercury
New Member [01%]
The dream of your life is to create beautiful art - don Miguel Ruiz
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 69
 
Monogamy is not natural to our species, that's true. However there are many valid reasons to choose it. I am in a monogamous marriage and it is something my husband and I consciously chose. Primarily because neither of us want to risk our lives for the benefit of sleeping with other people. We know ourselves and dislike using protective measures. For some people, the use of protective measures is no big deal, but for me personally it is.

@PsychadelicPowe: Why not just find other people who like sleeping around and have sex with them? There are lots of people who live this way. There is no law that says you have to have only one sex partner. Even if you marry, you can choose to marry someone who feels the same way you do and you can have an open marriage. What difference does it make to you if other people, for whatever reason, choose to be monogamous?
Mercury is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 10:59 AM   #7
ElstonGunn
Core Member [169%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,791
 
There is a difference between being sexually attracted to someone and wanting to act on that desire. Personally, I dig monogamy. But that could be influenced by any number of personal factors.

The part that bothers me is when people try to rationalize the kinds of actions that certain segments of society see as bad behavior by claiming that it's natural or that there's nothing they can do about it.
ElstonGunn is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 10:16 PM   #8
rahdam
Core Member [219%]
I squat everytime I go to the gym.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,788
 
I read the first paragraph, checked the poster, and laughed. You and I have polar opposite opinions on a lot of things it seems. This is well argued. I'm a bit constrained with work at the moment, but I will try to give an earnest reply later.
rahdam is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 12:12 AM   #9
cBorg
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 42
 

  Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But letís face reality for a second. Whether they know it or not, people are always going to want to have sex with more than one person. Therefore, faithful relationships are more or less the result of individuals not acting on this desire, whereas an unfaithful relationship involves individuals who do act on this desire.

Whether we know it or not huh? Sorry but I respectfully disagree. Yes I find others beside my husband attractive, but I honestly don't want to have sex with them. Don't base your arguments on the assumption everyone else feels the same way you do.

What exactly do you resent so much about others having monogamous relationships and being satisfied with them?

cBorg is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 12:49 AM   #10
echoi
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTx
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 55
 

 
"true love"- the ridiculous idea that if really you "truly loved someone" you only want to have sex with your partner and not anyone else.

that idea is ridiculous because it's simply incorrect. as people above have already stated, there is a difference between feeling and acting on your desires.

and say we accept your skeptical viewpoint on true love as a basis for monogamous relationships; the very real emotion of jealousy would kick in and be disastrous for most. unlike you, i doubt sexual monogamy is simply a social or cultural construction.

i will grant that many relationships last longer than they should, and that unhappiness may be the reason for cases of infidelity. while the relationship is healthy however, i think sexual monogamy is perfectly normal.

your quick advocacy of sexual freedom makes me question whether you have ever actually been in true love.

echoi is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 04:08 AM   #11
Malotis
Member [09%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 397
 

  Originally Posted by PurpleFnords
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think it is an incredibly arrogant assumption for you to make that people are (in all cases) always going to want to have sex with more than one person. How can you possibly speak for all of mankind on this?

Maybe I was going off of subjective experience, and maybe I should of said, in the vast majority of cases for the sake of being politically correct, but I've yet to meet an individual who is both interested in sex and goes through their entire life only having (and wanting) sex with one person.

  Originally Posted by Mercury
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why not just find other people who like sleeping around and have sex with them?

What does this have to do with anything? Does the post imply that I'm somehow searching for sexual partners?

  Originally Posted by Mercury
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What difference does it make to you if other people, for whatever reason, choose to be monogamous?

Absolutely none whatsoever, I did not mean to imply otherwise.

  Originally Posted by cBorg
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What exactly do you resent so much about others having monogamous relationships and being satisfied with them?

I do not resent others for having monogamous relationships. I just find the notion of a monogamous relationships silly when you consider that we live in a culture where infidelity is more or less common practice.

How many marriages end up in divorce? Of the marriages that don't end up in divorce how many of them involve infidelity? Is it possible that a spouse goes through an entire life time with out ever discovering their partners "secret life?"

Sure trust is vital component for a successful relationship. But if anyone looks at their relationship objectively how can trust be possible? How many people have foolishly told themselves, "I know him/her, he/she would never do that because they love me and I know they love me."

  Originally Posted by echoi
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
there is a difference between feeling and acting on your desires.

Yes, I don't know if I ever implied anything to the contrary. Is this not the difference between relationships which involve infidelity and relationships that do not?

  Originally Posted by echoi
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and say we accept your skeptical viewpoint on true love as a basis for monogamous relationships; the very real emotion of jealousy would kick in and be disastrous for most.

Jealousy is already often disastrous for most.

  Originally Posted by echoi
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
your quick advocacy of sexual freedom makes me question whether you have ever actually been in true love.

I'd question the relevancy of such a claim. However, letís look take a moment to look at the premises used to reach your conclusion.

1) Individual proceeds to "bash" the notion of monogamous relationships.
2) Bashing is followed by an advocacy for sexual freedom.
Conclusion: individual has never actually been in true love.

Well, interesting logic to say the least.

Malotis is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 06:36 AM   #12
echoi
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTx
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 55
 

  Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes, I don't know if I ever implied anything to the contrary. Is this not the difference between relationships which involve infidelity and relationships that do not?

"encouraging monogamy through the idealist notion of "true love"- the ridiculous idea that if really you "truly loved someone" you only want to have sex with your partner and not anyone else." <--from this statement, I got that you were talking about desire only (key word being "want"), not action. I disagree with this, believing that true love is not exclusive of sexual desire for others.

  Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jealousy is already often disastrous for most.

I don't disagree...I feel that there is a misunderstanding here; I was lazy in my last post and I really didn't flesh out this part of my argument as I should have. With bringing up jealousy, I wanted to point out that your relatively dismissive treatment of a truly loving relationship, by nominally labeling it as a mere social/cultural construction "designed to restrict and regulate the sexual activity of the general population," would be difficult to reconcile with the other strong emotions, besides love, that define human relationships. If relationships were merely bounds on our sexual freedom without the content of "true love", how would you explain feelings such as jealousy? What I'm trying to say with all this, is that a relationship is inclusive of many different emotions, including love, jealousy, desire, etc, and to do away with one of them is to question the validity of the others. Are relationships that empty? This is important, because it seems to me your advocacy for sexual freedom seems to be based on reducing true love to a fictional "idealist notion," and relationships to the mere titular function of limiting our behavior, concluding that the current restraints on our sexual promiscuity are arbitrary "social standards," there to be broken. So then, I must ask: if your dismissal of true love/relationships isn't just a convenient step you took to bolster your argument for sexual freedom, explain your reasoning.



  Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'd question the relevancy of such a claim. However, letís look take a moment to look at the premises used to reach your conclusion.

1) Individual proceeds to "bash" the notion of monogamous relationships.
2) Bashing is followed by an advocacy for sexual freedom.
Conclusion: individual has never actually been in true love.

Well, interesting logic to say the least.

I chose my words carefully so I'd avoid this type of response...apparently I wasn't successful...

I merely "question"ed whether you had experienced true love. Note, I leave this very open-ended. I have come to my conclusions on this topic from my own experiences with love, and I am merely expressing some skepticism as to whether someone who had experienced the same thing could come to such an opposite one.

echoi is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 07:24 AM   #13
Mercury
New Member [01%]
The dream of your life is to create beautiful art - don Miguel Ruiz
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 69
 
@PsychadelicPowe: your post seems to imply to me that you resent other people being in monogamous relationships. It gives off an aggressive stance, a defensive stance. I am not sure what your intention is with this thread (what is your intention?), but if your intention is to discuss monogamy vs. polyamory with the latter being better or more realistic, consider phrasing your words with that in mind. Because it seems as if your intention is to bash monogamy. Which is fine, whatever, but you will get people questioning your logic, which is not objective or rational in this case as you base much of it on what you presume other people feel. Not on any facts.

I do think many people rush into monogamous relationships on assumption that it is the right thing for them, because it is a cultural standard. But while I do think lots of people would benefit from feeling free to sleep around without judgment, I don't think this freedom has to come at the bashing of monogamy. When you are comfortable with your sexual choices, it makes little to no difference to you how other people choose to express themselves sexually.

On trust in a monogamous relationship: Trust is the most important component in a monogamous relationship because when you choose to sleep with anyone in this day and age without protective measures, you are risking your life. In a monogamous relationship you are trusting your partner with your very life every time you have sex with them. You both trust each other and engage in sex believing that your partner has not violated that trust. This level of emotional connection is not for everyone...it is simply too difficult for many to trust someone like this. In which case, if you (the general you) cannot believe or trust that your partner will never have sex with anyone else, then monogamy is definitely not for you. I believe this also indicates a trust issue you have with yourself...you probably don't believe that you can be faithful. This is the root cause of jealousy in presumptive monogamous relationships, not the engagement with monogamy itself. If one chooses to sleep around this basic issue with trust will still be there. It will lie dormant on sexual issues but show itself in other ways.
Mercury is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 08:15 AM   #14
vaguely dissatisfied
Member [38%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,540
 
The trust issue for me is that I would not be able to be in a polygymous relationship because I would not trust that my partner loved me if he was having sex with another woman/women. Just the act of him having sex with someone else would erode my belief that he loved me. Insecure or what?

I also believe that he would feel the same way, eventually, should we be involved in a polyandrous relationship. This may be because alot of men are concerned with their sexual ability and don't want to have to feel that they are competing, but this may be only my experiences.
vaguely dissatisfied is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 10:36 AM   #15
Noehelia
Member [11%]
MBTI: INFP
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 466
 
It is different to have a monogamous relationship in a certain point of time and different to be in the same monogamous relationship for all your life.

I disagree with the notion that the majority of people always going to want to have sex with more than one person. There are periods that people do not want to have sex with anyone else than their partners. The question should be "can it last forever?"

This is different for every person. It depends on many factors that are individual although many of them can be shared to many people.
Some of these factors are the attitudes of the person towards physical sex drive, emotions and ethics, plus they can change many times during a person's lifetime.
Noehelia is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:20 AM   #16
changos
Member [48%]
Male INTJ - 30 years old.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,951
 
My humble opinion: Love leads naturally to monogamy. The fact is: building a life or keep on a project of life involving diff persons "could be seen as attractive" for some generations, but emotionally is draining, it drains your energy to keep up with diff people at once. Eve if is just sex and if your partner agrees. I've read a lot about infidelity and some psychologists say is the end of any relationship. Just recently I found a text stating it helps to revive the hunt, the passion (I disagree).

About love, true love: If you love you are hurt if your partner have sex with somebody else. If she loves you she wouldn't want to hurt you. The same for you,if you love somebody you just want the best for her (even if perhaps it means she leaves you).

Love doesn't have to hurt (at least not in this wayat the cost of you being hurt just because the other person wants to have a good time).

Infidelity hurts, destroys trust, the fact that the other person cannot control her-his sexual desire or emotional needs, and that is a no no.

Imagine it as if it was just work. You hire somebody for a very important task but this person cannot keep his desire of earning more money or having a bigger office (thats ok) but he decides to quit after a month for US$100 more... thats not good. Some projects rely on the people being able to commit and stay for years. And even if you can change or hire somebody else, you loose time training him-her etc. (just a work example) I'm not sure if I got to explain my point.

I think new generations see it as "cool" if both agree. But even... as I remember on other threads, relationships with no commitment (friends with rights) end up with somebody feeling jealous if the partner have sex with somebody else. We humans are not built for sharing everything, thats the truth.

I agree that in some degree "some" people have a high desire for others (sexually or emotionally) but thats what makes relationships so important, to trust and sleep fine trusting your partner. Fidelity and commitment is not easy to find. Perhaps some will say "yes it is" or "yes I have it" but truth is some cases we won't ever know if our girl (or guy in that case) had sex with others while being with you.
changos is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 12:22 PM   #17
rwyatt365
Core Member [262%]
Proud member of GOIF!
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,502
 
I think that in humans there are two conflicting instincts (yes, I said the "I-word"); polyamory and ownership. I think that many (if not most) people have the capacity to be attracted to and share intimacy (not necessarily sexual intimacy, but at least emotional intimacy) with several partners simultaneously. At conflict with this is a tendancy to want to "own" that which we are intimate with - to share it with no one.

I say "at conflict" because (in the hypothetical) John is intimate with Sue and vice-versa, but Sue is attracted to Bill. When John discovers this, he expresses his "ownership" of Sue which results in conflict (with Sue because she resents being "owned", and with Bill because of a potential rivalry).

Marriage is societal confirmation of that "ownership" (i.e. the "marriage contract" or "covenant"). It's said that love binds two people together. I say that "love" is a word used to encapsulate the myriad of emotional responses that stem from that inate desire to "own" (lock-up / secure / solidify / etc...) that which we desire. I know it sounds crass and unemtional, but that my theory and I'm sticking with it. "Trust" is just another way of saying, "I believe that you won't break your part of the contract that we've formed." - once again, an "ownership" (or, partnership - to use kinder and gentler phraseology).

Infidelity is practical confirmation of the polyamorous instinct. I don't know about you ladies, but it takes years of practice to ignore that hot waitress at the Denny's. And your husband is not looking at the street signs behind those cute little teenagers at the bus stop. A guy can see a well-shaped butt from a half-mile away (a mile away on a non-cluttered street). Mens eyes are attracted to curves and skin, and that's a fact. Most will never act on that attraction - we know where our bread is buttered. Some, however, will - thus the infidelity. But the root is the same, it's all just a matter of degree.
rwyatt365 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 03:57 PM   #18
vaguely dissatisfied
Member [38%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,540
 

  Originally Posted by rwyatt365
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think that in humans there are two conflicting instincts (yes, I said the "I-word"); polyamory and ownership. I think that many (if not most) people have the capacity to be attracted to and share intimacy (not necessarily sexual intimacy, but at least emotional intimacy) with several partners simultaneously. At conflict with this is a tendancy to want to "own" that which we are intimate with - to share it with no one.

I say "at conflict" because (in the hypothetical) John is intimate with Sue and vice-versa, but Sue is attracted to Bill. When John discovers this, he expresses his "ownership" of Sue which results in conflict (with Sue because she resents being "owned", and with Bill because of a potential rivalry).

Marriage is societal confirmation of that "ownership" (i.e. the "marriage contract" or "covenant"). It's said that love binds two people together. I say that "love" is a word used to encapsulate the myriad of emotional responses that stem from that inate desire to "own" (lock-up / secure / solidify / etc...) that which we desire. I know it sounds crass and unemtional, but that my theory and I'm sticking with it. "Trust" is just another way of saying, "I believe that you won't break your part of the contract that we've formed." - once again, an "ownership" (or, partnership - to use kinder and gentler phraseology).

Infidelity is practical confirmation of the polyamorous instinct. I don't know about you ladies, but it takes years of practice to ignore that hot waitress at the Denny's. And your husband is not looking at the street signs behind those cute little teenagers at the bus stop. A guy can see a well-shaped butt from a half-mile away (a mile away on a non-cluttered street). Mens eyes are attracted to curves and skin, and that's a fact. Most will never act on that attraction - we know where our bread is buttered. Some, however, will - thus the infidelity. But the root is the same, it's all just a matter of degree.

Perhaps you'd like to see the infidelity thing from the woman's perspective? Having spent many years as a 'cheater' (in my previous life) I do have some insight. I can only speak for myself, but attraction to many men occurs quite regularly as well. I notice that I am much more circumspect when I spot a muscular young body or a chiseled older face than my partner seems able to be. I don't let my eyes linger when my partner is around. I don't grunt or sigh when a striking figure flashes across the t.v. screen. I don't say a word when the shirtless young man next door walks across his yard. Is this because I am less attracted? I don't know. I know I can be extremely attracted though. I believe it may have more to do with social expectations and conditioning differences between men and women than anything else.

vaguely dissatisfied is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 04:27 PM   #19
changos
Member [48%]
Male INTJ - 30 years old.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,951
 
mmm... perhaps some kind of infidelity has something to do with how well you select your partner**?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. As for serious relationships there was this little talk here at the office and we came out like:
  1. A group of people mostly sure of what we want and what we expect) with a past of few to several relationships experimenting several areas of the self and the partner, AND together.
    To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  2. A whole different group who married her/his first love and now are aware of the other fishes in the tank knowing only one taste of one ice cream.
    To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    (some people just don't date)
  3. A group who never had a serious relationship and only kept jumping around and now have serious doubts on who to choose lacking some emotional experience on how to deal with some problems.:embarassed:
Maybe this applies for another thread...

** Yes people change and become something you don't like (or they showed to you something they never were. But after thinking I guess is still a part of how well you choose (putting people to the test?)

Also, some people think of their partner as the eternal source of good emotions and sensations (equaling the partner to a pandoras box who doesn't exist) and after feeling no butterflies just jump to other arms??... Ok, I just wrote too much.
changos is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 07:39 PM   #20
Firebrand
Member [45%]
Help overpopulation.  Eat babies!
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,823
 
- Not everyone's priority is sex
- People are civilized and have the capability to control their urges. This is the difference between humans being just another animal species and having the capability to reason and consider cause and effect. INTJ's seem to have extra capability in this respect
- Some people (the numbers on this seem to be dropping) place more value on the mental connection they have with someone and also established trust which infidelity would destroy.
Firebrand is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 07:51 PM   #21
Chisos
Member [04%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 194
 

  Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A relationship is nothing more than a bull shit title designed to restrict and regulate the sexual activity of the general population by encouraging monogamy through the idealist notion of "true love"- the ridiculous idea that if really you "truly loved someone" you only want to have sex with your partner and not anyone else.

Personally, I've always been an advocate for sexual freedom. That is, being able to live in a world where people are to allowed to have sex with whomever they want and with as many partners as they want with out fear of negative connotations or judgments from either themselves or others. It is unfortunate, but for some reason society has created all these neagtive labels (I.E. slut, whore, skank, cunt, etc) for individuals who do not heed the social standard for sexual practices.

Hmmmm. Your definition of a relationship certainly has some merit. Quite an interesting perspective.

Maybe the notion you refer to in the first quoted paragraph is tied more to your opposition to the view of sex in the United States, in a predominantly Judeo-Christian society.

There have been times when the idea that "sex is God's cruel joke on humankind" seemed, to me, to have some merit--because our sexual urges tend to make people do things, or strongly want to do things, that our society frowns upon.

If we want to do something that is natural, with someone who also desires the same thing, then "Why not?" Oh, but then we have this guilt thing that arises afterwards.

I suppose our society has also indoctrinated us into this intimacy thing being tied to sex. (or, maybe it is innate. I don't know.)

Also, with regard to the negative connotations of those who are "sexual athletes," remember---you are an INTJ. So why care about what society thinks?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I wonder--do you think that the issue is "true love," or "true commitment?" If it's the latter, then the "religious" concept may fall out of the mix, and leave purely a contractual issue amont the copulators.

But in responding to your thought on monogamy/true love, I beleive that our society bears those views due to a large extent to the "United States" view of sex. And most folks in this nation have absorbed this view in at least some way--even if just to be ticked off about the way our culture views "sexual athleticism."

And, while my knowlege of other cultures is somewhat limited, it is my understanding that quite a few other places in the world have different views of sex outside of a monogamous relationship--and in at least some instances it is seen as no big deal.

Chisos is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 08:17 PM   #22
xtremegeek
Member [12%]
"I say, if you don't have grass stains by the end of the day you should ser
MBTI: ISTJ
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 482
 

  Originally Posted by Chisos
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And, while my knowlege of other cultures is somewhat limited, it is my understanding that quite a few other places in the world have different views of sex outside of a monogamous relationship--and in at least some instances it is seen as no big deal.

And those other places probably have a huge AIDS population to go along with that "no big deal" attitude. In this country, the state of Mississippi has one of the highest percentages of teenagers having unprotected sex, and Mississippi has one of the highest number of AIDS patients per 100,000 people.

Monogamy is not just about love, it's about physical health, it's about emotional health, it's about financial health.

Anyhow, this thread seems to have been started as a rant and a rage, perhaps a way of lashing out because of some failed relationship. The first sentence really sets the tone...

xtremegeek is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 08:35 PM   #23
mkay
Member [29%]
 
MBTI: ENTP
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,171
 

  Originally Posted by xtremegeek
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Anyhow, this thread seems to have been started as a rant and a rage, perhaps a way of lashing out because of some failed relationship. The first sentence really sets the tone...

Agreed. No one is forced into a monogamous relationship; if you (generic "you") don't want one, don't get into one. Ranting against relationships you have no knowledge of or investment in seems irrational. If people want to sleep around, spend their lives chaste or anywhere in between, it's a personal choice. Shrug.

mkay is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 02:10 PM   #24
Danisty
Member [32%]
Unrepentant Fangirl
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,285
 
There is a difference between polyamory and infidelity. Infidelity is a deception. If people were honest, you'd see less divorce because you'd probably see less people getting married who shouldn't be. I don't think people who want this "sexual freedom" you're talking about should keep quiet about it. Tell your partner in the beginning. If they're not into it, find someone else. Infidelity happens when people lie to themselves and others. It's that dishonesty that causes problems.

As for monogamy, I'm perfectly happy with it. I do find other men (and women) sexually attractive, but I have no desire to act on that even with my husband deployed in Iraq. I have a very strong libido and I go 6-8 months without sex while he's deployed, but I still have no interest in having sex with anyone but him. Obviously, there is more to this monogamy thing than you've taken into account.
Danisty is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.