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 really believe in true love. I believe there is a special connection I make with someone that I will make with no one else. Temptations, however, can come along, so I guess monogamy is a choice instead of natural.
I think true love exists, too, and that those special connections with one person exist.
I also know that there are different kinds of monogamy. There is social monogamy, which most people who are monogamous actually practice - the face they present to society regardless of what they do in private. Social monogamy is also the form most used for raising children as a couple, whether or not emotional and/or sexual monogamy is part of it. There is emotional monogamy, where you truly love only one person. And there is sexual monogamy, which only some (probably a small majority) people who call themselves monogamous actually practice.
Monogamy for many is a choice, but I also think there are many for whom it is natural as an extension of the natural pair bonding urge in human nature.
Your unique relationship has worked well for you. That is great. But having relationship with multiple guys at one time will never work for me. I've fallen in deep love with many men in the past, but I can honestly say that I have never loved two men at the same time. It is not "natural" (for lack of better word) to me.
And you are not alone in this. Many many people feel the same way. The distinction I feel worth making however is the difference between what feels natural for you (or me) and what is _actually_ natural. The point being that while you might feel strongly that you will never have "that" kind of relationship with more than one person at the same time - that in no way means you are incapable of it or it will never happen - or that others do not have it.
As such I do not think there is any such thing as "True Love" in the strictest sense of the words. There is only the love we choose to commit ourselves and our lives to when we find it.
And you are not alone in this. Many many people feel the same way. The distinction I feel worth making however is the difference between what feels natural for you (or me) and what is _actually_ natural. The point being that while you might feel strongly that you will never have "that" kind of relationship with more than one person at the same time - that in no way means you are incapable of it or it will never happen - or that others do not have it.
As such I do not think there is any such thing as "True Love" in the strictest sense of the words. There is only the love we choose to commit ourselves and our lives to when we find it.
I respect your opinion and I agree with you completely!
Vic, don't forget that many "monogamous" people cheat, so the risks may - for those - be as great or greater than in responsible non-monogamous relationships. Their partners cannot make an informed decision about the risks they wish to accept in return for their chosen relationship type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaoistDude
Monogamy for many is a choice, but I also think there are many for whom it is natural as an extension of the natural pair bonding urge in human nature.
Monogamy is definitely a choice. In my opinion, it is also a learned decision that people like me practice every day. It may not be something we are biologically predisposed to, yet we are not biologically predisposed to eating with chopsticks or folks either.
I think a new monogamy should be created and it should begin with integrity and honesty. You posted, "Don't forget that many monogamous people cheat." It seems to me that the hiding and the lying is what gets people into real trouble. Monogamy by itself is not the problem. It's the lying and the lack of honesty that challenges the moral code.
Monogamy is definitely a choice. In my opinion, it is also a learned decision that people like me practice every day. It may not be something we are biologically predisposed to, yet we are not biologically predisposed to eating with chopsticks or folks either.
I think a new monogamy should be created and it should begin with integrity and honesty. You posted, "Don't forget that many monogamous people cheat." It seems to me that the hiding and the lying is what gets people into real trouble. Monogamy by itself is not the problem. It's the lying and the lack of honesty that challenges the moral code.
I don't think we'll get a "new" monogamy real soon. People cheat because they can't ask for what they want with any expectation of their desires being accepted by their spouse. Current monogamy does not allow for that and actively discourages it. Honesty only gets you dumped, and leaves no options but to cheat, be unhappy, or divorce. You may have great social and emotional monogamy with your spouse, but the sexual monogamy is the make or break issue for most.
I don't think we'll get a "new" monogamy real soon. People cheat because they can't ask for what they want with any expectation of their desires being accepted by their spouse. Current monogamy does not allow for that and actively discourages it. Honesty only gets you dumped, and leaves no options but to cheat, be unhappy, or divorce. You may have great social and emotional monogamy with your spouse, but the sexual monogamy is the make or break issue for most.
I believe this is true, and is a direct result of historical, religious and cultural hang ups around sex and its value and position in a relationship. It is a commodity at least as much, if not more, than an action to be measured and weighed in terms of relationship value.
Their partners cannot make an informed decision about the risks they wish to accept in return for their chosen relationship type.
Anyone in a "monogamous" relationship with anyone runs a substantial risk of being "cheated" on. If they don't realize that, they're either extremely naïve or willfully ignorant.
And why are "relationship types" defined strictly by whether either party has sex with someone else? You never hear relationships classified by any other criteria, even though outside sex or the lack thereof is hardly the sum total of a relationship.
Vic, don't forget that many "monogamous" people cheat, so the risks may - for those - be as great or greater than in responsible non-monogamous relationships. Their partners cannot make an informed decision about the risks they wish to accept in return for their chosen relationship type.
You're addressing it as if U.S. society is generally monogamous. U.S. society alters monogamy just so that people can still claim that they are monogamous - because monogamy is considered to be the general way to go.
Thus you have "serial monogamy", "yearly monogamy", "monogamous, but does ONS once out of relationship", "monogamous but looking for a replacement", etc. People consider that they are monogamous even if they date and have sex with multiple people as long as they aren't confirmed to be "exclusive". Next thing you'll hear is the "menstrual monogamy - monogamous unless when my wife has menstruation, then it's free game", or "daily monogamy". You know, it's still monogamy as long as you can place that word. Threesomes are still monogamy for some folks, I bet they are.
Anyone in a "monogamous" relationship with anyone runs a substantial risk of being "cheated" on. If they don't realize that, they're either extremely naïve or willfully ignorant.
And why are "relationship types" defined strictly by whether either party has sex with someone else? You never hear relationships classified by any other criteria, even though outside sex or the lack thereof is hardly the sum total of a relationship.
That's true, but I think people hope their significant others are honorable and keep their promises, and choose to trust rather than be constantly suspicious (which is tiring and probably damaging to a relationship anyway).
As for defining types, that's a good point. However, that's what seems to be the prevailing criterion, and I don't have anything better to use - do you?
As for defining types, that's a good point. However, that's what seems to be the prevailing criterion, and I don't have anything better to use - do you?
Perhaps nothing at all--why does everything need to have a label?
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.
