Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a different situation. People in those types of marriages (most of my neighbors, for instance) say that they eventually learn or grow to love each other, and they, too, stay monogamous and keep sex within their own marriage. Now, whether they were in love with each other when they started having sex together (after their arranged marriage) is beyond me.
"say that they eventually learn or grow to love each other"
That would insinuate that anyone could love someone else and that runs contrary to the idea of one "True Love".
It seems like it is common to accept another's cultural as acceptable but think of it as "Unthinkable" if you were to apply the same logic within your own "Westernized ?" culture. I think of a good example is of an aquantance of mine that thought it was fine to move to Africa and become involved in a pluralistic marriage with a man there, then move back here and expect her man here to be loyal to her?
Location: Everybody is going to hurt you, you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for-B Marley
9,516 posts, read 19,999,259 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
That's a different situation. People in those types of marriages (most of my neighbors, for instance) say that they eventually learn or grow to love each other, and they, too, stay monogamous and keep sex within their own marriage. Now, whether they were in love with each other when they started having sex together (after their arranged marriage) is beyond me.
I married my rebound and was with him for the better part of 19 years and I grew to love him. But I was never 'in love' with him. All we had was a good sex life together--all the way to the end and slightly beyond.
I did no such thing. I said there is no marriage without sexual exclusivity. See the difference?
Quote:
You: There is no marriage without sexual exclusivity.
Me: You said that without sexual exclusivity there is no marriage.
So in both of those sentences there is no marriage without sexual exclusivity. That I chose to put the without sexual exclusivity phrase at the start of the sentence changes the meaning for you?
Quote:
I have a fairly universally accepted definition of marriage.
Luckily for interracial couples and gay couples the legal definition of marriage is fluid with the time. Many states now don't even bother with infidelity as a cause of fault for a faulted divorce. So I think the room for my definition for marriage will likely only grow.
I think that the focus on sexual exclusivity in marriage is a bit weird. There are so many other much more important factors that make a strong marriage.
"say that they eventually learn or grow to love each other"
That would insinuate that anyone could love someone else and run contrary to the idea of one "True Love".
I agree. It's just that's what I said in response to your question. I would never even consider something like an arranged marriage, but in some cultures, that's all they do consider. I think from their perspective, the families that arrange the marriages do so collaboratively and believe that the youngsters they are hooking up are compatible in terms of personality, and that the youngsters (evidently) believe their parents/grandparents/relatives who arrange the marriage are wiser in terms of these matters than they are.
Quote:
It seems like it is common to accept another's cultural as acceptable but think of it as "Unthinkable" if you were to apply the same logic within your own "Westernized ?" culture.
I just think if it's OK for them, it's OK for them, just not for me, that's all.
Quote:
I think of a good example is of an aquintance of mine that thought it was fine to move to Africa and become involved in a pluralistic marriage with a man there, then move back here and expect her man here to be loyal to her?
You: There is no marriage without sexual exclusivity.
Me: You said that without sexual exclusivity there is no marriage.
So in both of those sentences there is no marriage without sexual exclusivity. That I chose to put the without sexual exclusivity phrase at the start of the sentence changes the meaning for you?
Yes, the meaning changes significantly. In the first sentence, marriage becomes moot when the covenant/contract of sexual exclusivity is broken. In the second, it covers the possibility that unmarried people can have sexual exclusivity. You don't have to be married to be sexually exclusive (monogamous). However, if you are married, you must be sexually exclusive, or else the marriage might as well not be. It is over, no good, kaput.
Quote:
Luckily for interracial couples and gay couples the legal definition of marriage is fluid with the time.
There have been interracial couples as long as there have been couples. Gay marriage is a relatively new concept, but legally (in the US anyway), it is still an ambiguous one.
Quote:
Many states now don't even bother with infidelity as a cause of fault for a faulted divorce. So I think the room for my definition for marriage will likely only grow.
It may grow, but your definition of marriage will always be a minority definition.
Quote:
I think that the focus on sexual exclusivity in marriage is a bit weird. There are so many other much more important factors that make a strong marriage.
I would only tolerate an open marriage if my husband worked and paid all the bills while I stayed home all day.
I would also understand if he was bisexual,and needed to be with a man from time to time.
I do think most open marriages have at least one bisexual or gay partner.
Location: Everybody is going to hurt you, you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for-B Marley
9,516 posts, read 19,999,259 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
I would only tolerate an open marriage if my husband worked and paid all the bills while I stayed home all day.
I would also understand if he was bisexual,and needed to be with a man from time to time.
I do think most open marriages have at least one bisexual or gay partner.
I shudder to think. What about all the diseases and people who are carriers of things like venereal warts--which you can't cure--and things like that? Condoms break. Things happen. It's so dangerous.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
I would only tolerate an open marriage if my husband worked and paid all the bills while I stayed home all day.
I would also understand if he was bisexual,and needed to be with a man from time to time.
I do think most open marriages have at least one bisexual or gay partner.
Most bisexual people insist they can be exclusive in a relationship...but what if it's permanent, or long-term, like a marriage? The majority of truly bisexual people I know (sorry if I offend any bi's here) have definitely been more promiscuous than average. Indeed fewer even seem to be in relationships, maybe so they can indulge in their sexual antics without cheating on anyone.
Would it be different with a live-in partner instead of marriage? I was married once and do not want to do that again. But I am open to a live-in partner.
Not directed at me but I'll comment ---
I have never had an open relationship before but I am opened to it, but only on a very limited basis. As mentioned above a main live-in partner interests me because I'd prefer to live with someone than alone which is what I am currently doing. Say if I do meet someone and she tells me she has a long time lover but does not want to live with him or there are other circumstances, do I have the right to say no? I guess I could but I won't.
Or say the female is bi and wants to have sex with a friend she has known for a long time and can't live with her because her partner is part of a family. Or she likes to have sex with both males and females and tells me she wants to continue to see her. Again, no problem with me.
I guess I'm just more open-minded than many. Most relationships are temporary anyway. But whatever works for you and makes you happy...
Monogamy has never worked for me and for the record I have never cheated on anyone, ever. I'm thinking it may be time to try something different.
This issue has nothing to do with open-mindedness. It is about preferences. A couple that chooses an open marriage is not more open-minded than a couple that opts for a monogamous marriage. Open-mindedness is about realizing that just because something feels right to you doesn't mean it feels right to everyone else.
I had an open-relationship with my first boyfriend while we were in college. For us - it was because we were both growing and changing while at separate colleges - and even though we still loved each other, we were basically falling out of love with each other. It was too hard for us to not date other people and have life experiences while we were many states away from each other. We are still best friends and we don't regret any of the decisions we made. I'm not saying that this is the reason that some couples opt for an open marriage - because I know it is not. All I'm saying is that the people that choose to have a monogamous relationship are not more close minded - it's just what they prefer. I had an open relationship with my ex but there is no way in hell I would have one with my husband. It wouldn't be right for us.
I would only tolerate an open marriage if my husband worked and paid all the bills while I stayed home all day.
I would also understand if he was bisexual,and needed to be with a man from time to time.
I do think most open marriages have at least one bisexual or gay partner.
"I would also understand if he was bisexual,and needed to be with aman from time to time."
This is a very unpopular view in society and with most woman I'm fine with it because I don't feel the need to place my values on others.
Last edited by LS Jaun; 02-01-2012 at 12:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm fine with it because I don't feel the need to place my values on others.
