Roles, relationships, sex
Offline Familiarity breeds contempt...
I was watching a show last night on cable about swapping spouses. Two families agree to swap moms for a week and cameras follow. I rarely watch TV but was laid low with a nasty cold for a few days so... In any event one of the moms had left her first husband after getting worked up into a lather over a guy she met while they were on vacation. The guy was about ten years younger than her and it was very obvious she was sex struck by the guy. Nothing wrong with that but she does decide to get a divorce and marry this guy that has no desire to be a step father for the two daughters she has and of course has custody of despite the fact her mothering skills leave a little to be desired. Blah, blah, blah...
It seems unreasonable to expect to stay sexually attracted to someone that you are living with with for an extended amount of time. I don't care how beautiful she is or how funny she is or how nice she is or how wicked nasty she used to be. Over time it just gets old. Stop eating so loud. Did you take the trash out? Do you really need a second beer? I read of people who stay happily married for 50, 60, 70 years. Did they always retain the sexual stimulus they probably shared at first? Or did they more than likely just stop having sex and remain happy with the companionship they had?
So if you've had your kids. They've grown and left the nest. Is it really such a bad thing if you get your groove on with someone else? With the expectation that you fulfill all other duties of a companion. I've always had a hard time with casting stones at adulterers. The older I get, the harder time I have with the whole "faithful" expectation of relationships. It seems almost everyone would be much better off if they could just scratch the itch with a new stick every once in awhile. I'd love to hear a good, reasonable reason why I'm wrong or right. I worry, just a little, that I'm missing something and am just plain fucked up in the head on this issue.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
- Login to post comments
Some folks just thrive on having (sometimes multiple) fucked-up relationships.
Some folks have had enough after a lengthy one.
Then there's always the matter of financial security... a primary motivational factor for women continuing, or attempting to continue in engaging in fucking up your shit.
It really makes you think. If a relationship "isn't just about the sex" then why do some many people care about sexual fidelity? People will immediaty get devorced when they find out that their parenter has been screwing around. People really need to be open to the idea. I mean if my partner let me have sex with some random person then they would get to do the same thing, so it win-win. If they dont want to then maybe I can find something else to do for them.
Also, if you're open about it then your long term partner might join in with you other partner!
Don't know about you, but not w/o a blood test and sufficient time passing to at least observe what kind of visibe sores appear. Granted. It's the "invisible"
sores that can get you.
These days, you fuck the wrong person, you might as well be blowing your head off.
Do you think having a successful long term relationship could be a form of OCD?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
I think adultery is kind of hot sometimes.
Anyway, children just seem like a pain.
Success is always measured in terms of not getting a divorce.
I love how Christians give their testamony of how 'God through faith' enabled a couple to stay togother through all the difficult years of marriage. So their is religion is so wonderful because you stay in a situation you despise throughly and continually wish you could try out someone else.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I think babies are a pain, not so much children. At least with a child who is old enough to understand right and wrong you could spack them around if need be.
"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4
Funny~ we were chatting in Skype last night about sex and something similar to this subject was brought up.
We were discussing a website's "do and don't" list (can't remember the website) regarding introduction of sex toys into a relationship. If i recall the site said NOT to suddenly whip out a dildo in the height of passion especially if your partner doesn't know you have one (LOL)
Our conversation became one regarding the importance of communication in a relationship with regards to sex ~ what a person is sick of , what they want to be pleased etc.
Subdi visions wrote "It seems unreasonable to expect to stay sexually attracted to someone that you are living with with for an extended amount of time. I don't care how beautiful she is or how funny she is or how nice she is or how wicked nasty she used to be. Over time it just gets old. Stop eating so loud. Did you take the trash out? Do you really need a second beer? "
My 17th anniversary is tomorrow. I will say that life and sex can get to be the same old same old ~ I say the trick is to talk about it with your partner!
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
There are hazards invovled in getting your groove on with someone else: take note of the recent events in Steve McNairs short life. There is no evidence that he and his wife were breaking up, and that may have lead to his girlfriend buying that gun. His is certainly not the only life to end in such a tragedy, just the best known for now.
;
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
The first thing to remember is that for 99.99% of human history, the average lifespan has been between 30 and 40 years. That's just long enough to pop out a few kids and get them out of the cave and on their own. Natural selection hasn't had time to work on us significantly since the average lifespan doubled.
This doesn't "prove" anything, but it does cast serious doubt on the notion that humans are designed to stay married "til death do us part" in all cases. It also points us toward the conclusion that our genes haven't given us anything to deal with life after kids.
Couple this with the fact that we (humans) are also not designed to be completely monogamous, and you've got a real dilemma on your hands. I think what it comes down to is that there isn't some kind of transcendent mandate to stay with someone past childrearing, but there are significant evolutionary forces which make us want to, even when the sex has gotten stale or we're no longer attractive to each other.
Having said that, I've discovered in the past few years that there's a pretty damn large number of people who stay married for whatever reason, but do permit their spouses to have lovers. In fact, I know someone right now whose wife has chronic pain which makes sex uncomfortable or painful. She and her husband are still together for the house, kids, and friendship, but the husband is basically free to have "mistresses" on the side. How long will this arrangement last? I dunno, but it's been this way for several years, and seems to be working. (And yes, he has availed himself of his freedom on numerous occasions.)
I think what Renee said is relevant in both situations. Honesty and openness have almost magical power. You seldom get what you want if you don't ask for it. The thing is, everything in life is a trade. If you leave someone you've been with for 20 or 30 years, you risk never finding that same kind of relationship again. If you stay, you risk never having exciting feelings of intense sexual attraction again. There's no "right" answer across the board, unfortunately. It is what it is. A lot of our feelings in America about sexual fidelity are due to the pervasive culture of monogamy. Humans are quite capable of maintaining nonmonogamous relationships, but the social barriers here are considerable. That's why most people who do it keep it a secret from the general public. Humans are also quite capable of doing serial monogamy, and there's no reason not to start a new relationship in older age.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually Hamby, the average lifespan according to this chart was mostly between 20 and 30 through most of history.. 10 years less than you even said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Just enough time to make some babies then die.
How boring would that be?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Bronze Age has average lifespan at 18...lol. :I
heh... shame on me for answering off the cuff. Thanks, Clock!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Referring to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, financial security directly influences your ability to meet your physiological and security needs. Your most basic and important. It's understandable that many people get downright medieval over the threat of its loss. But having sex with someone outside a committed relationship shouldn't have to automatically lead to destruction of the committed relationship.
I think its because we've been socially programmed to believe in "true love" and to dump the fool that fucks around on us. We take it as an insult that we don't please someone enough that they have to go looking elsewhere. But that's bull shit. Our biology encourages us to spread our seed far and wide. The same is true for women.
With a big stretch I guess I can almost see it that way. I think it's more likely that we tend to weigh the convenience and comfort of a committed relationship against the stress and inconsistency of ending a relationship, rebuilding your life/home and finding new people to enjoy playing with.
The thrill of the hunt and excitement of someone new is definitely hot. The sociological baggage of adultery definitely isn't.
Many children are a pain but it's because their parents suck at teaching them how to interact with others around them. I think if you become involved with a person that has children and you aren't able to shoulder the burden of them you should walk your ass out of that relationship and into one that doesn't have them. But that's just me.
Happy anniversary.
Talking with your partner and exploring other options is excellent place to begin. But after you've graduated from sweet and delicious love making to something a little more naughty, to something even more naughty, then on to even more raucous and nasty play its hard to enjoy the simpler joys of sex any longer. The dopamine machine in your head demands more stimulation to give you that good old love rush.
A truly tragic incident. I know no facts about this incident but it certainly seems like the girlfriend let her heart get involved with her married man. Very sad...
Excellent posts from everyone.
Thanks
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Subdi Visions Wrote:
"But having sex with someone outside a committed relationship shouldn't have to automatically lead to destruction of the committed relationship."
Exactly. In fact there are litterally millions of couples who negotiate non-monogamy. Many have extra ordinary, interdependant loving marriages.
I could blather on about all the benefits of breaking away from the opression of traditional "Vanilla" marriage...but here is a link to my buddy's site...it should answer any questions that most of you have... http://www.coupledoingit.com/ ...the Video is hilarious...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I very rarely get involved in monogamy because sharing experiences with people helps you develop further. In my opinion, it is better to not attempt to restrict yourself...but if you care about your significant other, talk things over and be open to not doing things. I just don't want to get involved with someone that wants monogamy, because I don't see it working. You can have a living partner and different sexual partners as well, I just think things should be open and should be talked about.
Hell, historically most people married for family or political reasons, and then had mistresses.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
It's not the same for men and women.
Men can theoretically have as many children at once as they can find women to have sex with. That is, if a man has sex with ten women in one day, he could have 10 children nine months later. Again, theoretically, a male's parental investment is as little as a few seconds and a teaspoon of bodily resources. At minimum, a female's parental investment is 9 months. If her child is to live, she must nurse it for months to years after it is born, and then there's the significant investment of resources before the child is able to fend for itself.
Of course, it's more complicated than that. Men don't get their way because women have the ability to choose their mates. Women, faced with the looming responsibility and resource drain, figured out that men who would stick around and help are better mates than those who hit and run. Male infidelity is typically seen as the fulfilment of the male desire to spread his genes as far through the population as possible.
Female infidelity is a little more complicated. Most women are not "the most desirable woman in the room," regardless of what room they're in. Most women realize somewhere around high school or college that most men are willing to have sex with them, but very few are willing to commit to them. Men also get to choose which female they want to commit to, and they have high standards. In other words, women don't get the most desirable male -- they get the best male they can get. Sometimes, the best male they can get to commit is not the best male they can get to have sex with them. I'm skipping a lot of steps, but the end result is simple: Females pursue the strategy of getting the best man they can get to commit, and if they are given the opportunity to mate with a better man and trick their mate into raising the child, they will often do it.
Bear in mind that these are all generalizations. These are the evolutionary forces which formed our predominant urges. Typically, men are more about quantity and women are more about quality when it comes to "casual sex."
Here's another way to look at it. It matters little to a woman with three children whether one, two, or three men are the fathers. In any case, her genes have been passed on three times. In three years, a woman can pretty much only have three children, so she has little evolutionary motivation to spread herself around so long as she has a willing (and desirable) partner. A man, on the other hand, has a great deal of evolutionary motivation to seek multiple partners, since he can have virtually unlimited numbers of offspring. We would be quite surprised if the female and male mating strategies were identical.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The video is very funny.
I hadn't really thought of those reasons regarding women and this issue. I was referring more to the dopamine amusement ride going on or not in our heads in regards to sex, which I think is very similar to what men go through. It's definitely a very convoluted affair.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
I've seen several other equally idiotic
measurements of how "sucessfull" one supposedly is or is not.
Really?
Shocking!
You're looking at average life span at birth. As the article says, high infant mortality rates will significantly lower that. The average life span for people who survived early childhood would be much higher. Thus if you lived past say age 7, you could probably expect to live past age 40 or so with decent odds, even if the "average life expectancy" was in the 20's.
The biggest reason the current average life expectancy is so high is that infant mortality is so low. People aren't living that much longer, its just that far fewer people are contributing 0 or 1 to bring down the average.
Today's average life expectancy is much closer to average age reached by people who survive childhood (which are the only people this question really matters for). Not so true in the past.
Look for "average life expectancy past age 5" or something similar. That will give you a better idea of how old most adults actually got.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Well yeah. There's also our relation to other primate species that tells us what a "natural" state of affairs would be. Since we're most closely related to chimps and bonobos, you can argue whether it would be natural for us to be as violent as chimps, or as "promiscuous" as bonobos. The bonobo has sex like we hug one another, and it makes sense in their social system.
We seem to have the strangest of both worlds, where we get violent over sex. But biology isn't precise. It's not like we could say that monogamy works the best, or that promiscuity works the best, because it's biology, and biology is a semi-chaotic mess. Dawkins' prime-moving genetic material seems to ensure the greatest range of behaviours possible, just in case one adapts better, and the others are wiped out.
So I guess what I'm saying is that monogamy is merely a coincidence, and in a more free society (like many of us enjoy) we can opt out of such things, given that we're sentient beings, but it's not going to eradicate our suffering or unpleasant feelings.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Every time I face this kind of a dilema, I think about what Newton would say about it. The man never had sex during his life time and was never less of a man for it.
I divorce my integrity from my sexuality whenever I can and simply go with not hurting people around me for something as trivial as temporary sexual fancy. No problems with it for the past 13 years.
On the other hand, I do substitute a lot with professional, business and academic achievement.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Violent sex, the best of both worlds?
Monogamy only seems to work for most people if they have frequent short relationships I've noticed. They tend to "partner swap" for someone new again and again and again..it is usually hard to tell who those people are with, as it always seems they have a new boyfriend/girlfriend.
I think people should take it less seriously than it is though. Sex is just sex, it's not like it is a huge deal. It is like eating, or sleeping...just another normal activity.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.