# Affairs



## Bullgrit (Feb 6, 2014)

Just heard "Me and Mrs. Jones" by Billy Paul on the radio. This is another of those songs that I loved since I was young, but it wasn't until I was a adult that I understood what it was really about.

Have you ever been invloved, in any way, with an extramarital/relationship affair? As a participant, as a witness, as a friend, as a victim? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 6, 2014)

People are too stuffy and possessive. Maybe some people can just sleep with one person for all of their life, but not all. We should stop the hypocrisy, especially if you are from the school of thought that it is about controlling women's uterus to make sure men aren't spending resources on another man's genes.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 6, 2014)

I haven't since I've been married but I have cheated, have been cheated on and have seen friends - married and not - cheat and be cheated on.  It's almost like it's a pretty natural thing.

For me, though, it's out of my system.  Plus the potential financial cost makes it far less than worth it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 6, 2014)

Never been cheated on, never cheated.  Have seen a bunch of it, though...including once (paradoxically) in a so-called "open relationship".

IMHO, people should be a lot more upfront on their views of monogamy, because when the pairbonders mix with the rolling stones, its always a mess.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 6, 2014)

Yup.  There ain't many ways to do this sort of thing wrong but if ya ain't clear, well, some pretty damaging mistakes can happen.  Oh, and it helps to be honest with yourself first, too.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Feb 7, 2014)

My thoughts?

Never do business with an (unrepentant) adulterer: a man who cheats on his wife will also cheat you.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 7, 2014)

Weird to admit on this site, but I've never cheated _on_ someone, but I've been "the other guy" a few times.


----------



## delericho (Feb 7, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Have you ever been invloved, in any way, with an extramarital/relationship affair?




No, and I _really_ hope I never am.



> As a participant, as a witness, as a friend, as a victim?




Again, no. However, I'm aware of a guy in my band who recently had an affair and is now suffering the consequences. It's actually quite sad - it was a stupid mistake, if he had the time over he wouldn't do it, he still loves his wife... but she is divorcing him.

(I should note: I am in no way excusing his behaviour, or suggesting anything other than that he was in the wrong. He clearly was, and will admit that himself. Also, I don't know his wife at all - all I see is his side, where someone I know is in pain.)



> What are your thoughts on the subject?




The Golden Rule applies - do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Cheating on someone is not a good thing, whether you are married or not. If you don't want to be in a relationship then end it, and _then_ go be with the person you want to be with. And if you don't want to do that, because the cost of breaking up the relationship is too high, then perhaps you shouldn't be cheating in the first place? If nothing else, it will probably be much less difficult for all concerned if you end things then begin your new relationship, rather than cheat, get found out, and have the whole thing explode at once.

(In the past, I would have had more sympathy for extramarital affairs, since marriage was for life and much harder to end. But it is now relatively easy to dissolve a marriage, so that justification is largely moot.)

Having said all that... I'm very aware that life is a pretty messy business, and that everybody is under different stresses, has different weaknesses, and so on and so forth. So, really, the above is a statement of principle, but not necessarily something that will stand up to reality. Mostly, I'm just grateful that I've not been involved, and hoping that I will continue to not be involved.


----------



## Dioltach (Feb 7, 2014)

I've been the "other guy" (and I suspected one of my girlfriends long ago of not being particularly faithful), but very much in a casual sense. It's not something I'm comfortable with, or proud of. Personally I feel that if you're in a relationship, quite apart from the love aspect, you should respect your partner. And that includes not carrying on behind their back.

If I found out that someone was having an affair or cheating, I wouldn't say anything about it, or get involved in anyway, unless it was one of my (handful of) closest friends. I'd probably tell them to think carefully about what they were doing, but for the rest I'd try to ignore it. If it was the partner of my close friends I might be a bit more forceful about getting them to sort out their act.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 7, 2014)

I never understood this sort of thing and I find the underlying dishonesty incomprehensible.

Then again, I must say that being honest and forthright about relationships is so difficult, for reasons on both the social and the personal level, that I can understand why it's appealing for people to plow ahead with life without ever talking to their partner about what a relationship is to them and about how they actually feel towards each other.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> People are too stuffy and possessive. Maybe some people can just sleep with one person for all of their life, but not all. We should stop the hypocrisy, especially if you are from the school of thought that it is about controlling women's uterus to make sure men aren't spending resources on another man's genes.




That's what divorce or breaking up with somebody is for.

Otherwise it's lying and being dishonest to somebody who you profess to love.

That's not stuffy sexist thinking.  It's being nice to other people.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 7, 2014)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> Never do business with an (unrepentant) adulterer: a man who cheats on his wife will also cheat you.




Why?  Are you a woman he's married to?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Janx said:


> That's what divorce or breaking up with somebody is for.
> 
> Otherwise it's lying and being dishonest to somebody who you profess to love.
> 
> That's not stuffy sexist thinking.  It's being nice to other people.



Who says you can't love someone and have sex with other people? Who says you can't love many people at the same time? Who talked about dishonesty?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Who says you can't love someone and have sex with other people? Who says you can't love many people at the same time? Who talked about dishonesty?




If you aren't clear and open with your partner about loving another, or having sex with another, then it is dishonesty.  

If you talk with your spouse/partner/significant other, and agree that relations with others are okay, then it isn't "having an affair" or "cheating" - you can't cheat if you are within the rules.

But if you aren't above board about it, you're a schmuck.

("You" used generically, not "you, goldomark" specifically)


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If you aren't clear and open with your partner about loving another, or having sex with another, then it is dishonesty.



What does this have to do with my original post?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Who talked about dishonesty?




Janx did.  In the post you quoted.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Who says you can't love someone and have sex with other people? Who says you can't love many people at the same time? Who talked about dishonesty?




The title of the thread is Affairs.

An Affair is cheating on somebody.  It is lying to your partner about who you share yourself with.

If you're talking about an agreement between all parties involved, that's not an affair.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Why?  Are you a woman he's married to?




Zig Zigler has a segment on this topic from one of his 7 habits sessions.

this guy's at this nice hawaiian hotel for a conference and Zig sees him looking all melancholy looking over the balcony.

Zig asks how he can be blue in the face of all the natural beauty.

Guy says it's because he's worried about what his wife might be doing while he's out.

Turns out,t he guy met his current wife by way of cheating on his ex-wife.

The lesson being, a guy who cheats, cheats again or distrusts his partners.

As the Aggie saying goes "An Aggie never lies, cheats or steals nor tolerates those who do."


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Janx did.  In the post you quoted.



So why didn't Umbran quote him?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> So why didn't Umbran quote him?




Oh, god, just to annoy you of course, like everything else. Just drop it, please.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Janx said:


> The title of the thread is Affairs.
> 
> An Affair is cheating on somebody.  It is lying to your partner about who you share yourself with.
> 
> If you're talking about an agreement between all parties involved, that's not an affair.



No I'm talking about ending the hypocrisy that leads to affairs existing. We should stop glorifying something that a lot of people can't perform (fidelity). There would be a lot less strife if we just accepted that some people need to fool around or have multple partners. 

These are my thoughts on the subject, to answer BG's question.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Oh, god, just to annoy you of course, like everything else. Just drop it, please.



I just answered his post and yours, what is wrong with that?


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> No I'm talking about ending the hypocrisy that leads to affairs existing. We should stop glorifying something that a lot of people can't perform (fidelity). There would be a lot less strife if we just accepted that some people need to fool around or have multple partners.
> 
> These are my thoughts on the subject, to answer BG's question.




That's likely a different social problem from actually having affairs.  There would be a lot less strife in the world if those people who had that urge didn't lie to their partners about it and instead exited their current monogamous relationship.  I don't care about you sleeping around.  I care about my spouse sleeping around because we both swore an oath not to do that to each other.

A factor to consider, is that people ARE possessive, territorial beings. Just like animals.  All the agreeing about open relationships doesn't stop the fact that somebody gets their feelings hurt.  All the social change and counseling in the world ain't gonna change our emotional biology that when we think we're in a relationship, it's exclusive.

I don't think I'd be interested in any brave new world where people didn't give a rats arse to relationships.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 7, 2014)

Janx said:


> Zig Zigler has a segment on this topic from one of his 7 habits sessions.
> 
> this guy's at this nice hawaiian hotel for a conference and Zig sees him looking all melancholy looking over the balcony.
> 
> ...




Well then that lesson is wholly bunk.  I've cheated yet won't do it again nor do I have any trust issues.  What dood is doing - and so is anyone who follows this logic - is taking behavior in one segment of life and applying it to another, different segment.  That's silly.  A guy who cheats on his wife may cheat you in business but he also may not.  A guy who never cheats on his wife may take your money and run.  How one behaves in a personal relationship does not always dictate how they'll behave in a business environment.  

Basically it's a simplistic view that's easy to accept because it makes us feel smart.  It's not smart, of course, but that's what you get with useless platitudes.  'A cheater always cheats' is a great way to unfairly judge someone and then justify whatever negative behavior you put forth toward them because of it - and that's all it is: justification to treat someone poorly or as somehow lesser than yourself.  Very little in this world - and even less when it comes to human behavior - is black and white.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 7, 2014)

I am pretty stuffy as a person, however I have been the source of an illicit affair in 1987, a woman who it turned out was getting married to a high school buddy.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Well then that lesson is wholly bunk.  I've cheated yet won't do it again nor do I have any trust issues.  What dood is doing - and so is anyone who follows this logic - is taking behavior in one segment of life and applying it to another, different segment.  That's silly.  A guy who cheats on his wife may cheat you in business but he also may not.  A guy who never cheats on his wife may take your money and run.  How one behaves in a personal relationship does not always dictate how they'll behave in a business environment.
> 
> Basically it's a simplistic view that's easy to accept because it makes us feel smart.  It's not smart, of course, but that's what you get with useless platitudes.  'A cheater always cheats' is a great way to unfairly judge someone and then justify whatever negative behavior you put forth toward them because of it - and that's all it is: justification to treat someone poorly or as somehow lesser than yourself.  Very little in this world - and even less when it comes to human behavior - is black and white.




The whole point of such social standards is to outcast people who don't conform to certain social standards.  Because a guy who cheats with his wife who is allowed to remain in polite society may in turn try to seduce my wife into cheating with him.  By casting him out, the herd is protected.

I agree, the metric is simplistic.  Odds are, there are two kind of cheaters (obviously an extreme dichotomy).  The guy who kind of fell in love with a new person without ending it with the old one.  And the sociopath who has no regard for others feelings and is happy to manipulate people to get what he wants.

Generally, I want those sociopaths identified, and excised as they are harmful to society because they are causing harm to others.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I am pretty stuffy as a person, however I have been the source of an illicit affair in 1987, a woman who it turned out was getting married to a high school buddy.




Sorry for using you as an example, but it may illustrate a counterpoint to  [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]'s concern

As he seems to indicate society should be OK with people conjugating willy-nilly and that we aren't that evolved yet socially to accept that, consider that we have evolved such that it is also not socially acceptable for me to be mean to Scott for his past action.

Meaning that society is willing to give such behavior a pass, more so now, than in the past.

Even while still advocating a more "puritan" viewpoint on the matter of excessive co-mingling.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Janx said:


> That's likely a different social problem from actually having affairs.  There would be a lot less strife in the world if those people who had that urge didn't lie to their partners about it and instead exited their current monogamous relationship.



Unless the problem is the false need for controlling people'S sexuality in the first place. Not sleeping around. 

Have you considered that people are conditioned to think sleeping with other people is bad?



> I don't care about you sleeping around.  I care about my spouse sleeping around because we both swore an oath not to do that to each other.



But who said you need to sware an oath about monogamy to be with someone? What is the origine of that? Why is monogamy important? Why accept a limit on your freedom and clearly wanting to limit the freedom of your wife?



> A factor to consider, is that people ARE possessive, territorial beings. Just like animals.  All the agreeing about open relationships doesn't stop the fact that somebody gets their feelings hurt.



I love generalization.   



> All the social change and counseling in the world ain't gonna change our emotional biology that when we think we're in a relationship, it's exclusive.



And I am talking about changing culture. The first step is to stop making excuses. We wouldn't of had the sexual revolution, liberation of women, civils rights for blakc people, etc, is we just accepted the status quo. 



> I don't think I'd be interested in any brave new world where people didn't give a rats arse to relationships.



When did I say that? I think the problem is that you believe that controlling the sxuality of someone means you care about that person.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 7, 2014)

Janx said:


> The whole point of such social standards is to outcast people who don't conform to certain social standards.  Because a guy who cheats with his wife who is allowed to remain in polite society may in turn try to seduce my wife into cheating with him.  By casting him out, the herd is protected.




And what about the guy that made a mistake once and would never try to seduce your - or anyone elses' - wife?  He should be cast out as well?  That's the problem with this.  You hurt decent folks out of a selfish and silly fear.  You really don't trust your wife enough to spurn another man's advances?  That's on you, bro.  Not your wife, not the imaginary man - you.  And it's not fair to either of them.

Basically the whole thing is dumb.  'Someone who bangs a married woman they aren't married to will steal your money if you go into business with them.'  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: break one moral 'law' and you'll break more.  Let's apply that to something else, then: A man who jaywalks is a man who will slit your throat.  Break one law and you'll break another - no matter how unrelated - right?  Silly.  It's just silly.



> I agree, the metric is simplistic.  Odds are, there are two kind of cheaters (obviously an extreme dichotomy).  The guy who kind of fell in love with a new person without ending it with the old one.  And the sociopath who has no regard for others feelings and is happy to manipulate people to get what he wants.
> 
> Generally, I want those sociopaths identified, and excised as they are harmful to society because they are causing harm to others.




The problem is that your solution in no way differentiates between the two.  If someone cheats, they're a sociopath.  Well, at least that's how they'll be treated.  'A cheater always cheats' doesn't leave any room for redemption.  Simple is stupid and it's terribly unfair.

Just like people who cheat should think about how they'd feel if they were cheated on, people who judge and damn others without trying to understand them should think about how they'd feel if they were to find themselves ostracized after making one mistake.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Unless the problem is the false need for controlling people'S sexuality in the first place. Not sleeping around.
> 
> Have you considered that people are conditioned to think sleeping with other people is bad?




Because it is bad.  When you sleep with someone, you sleep with every STD person that person has slept with.

Being promiscuous is tactically a bad idea just from the goal of avoiding spreading disease.

More families would rather their SO not bring home a box of Herpes or have to slice off a part of the income to pay for extra-marital child support.

More people equate emotional bonding and exclusivity to sex than don't.  So it really bothers them when they find out their partner has been forking the secretary after work.

These are fundamental principles of modern society.

So you might think of having sex as no more emotional than playing racket ball with somebody.  But I highly doubt most people do.

Or to look at it slightly differently.  Once somebody is having sex with you because they are in love with you, the chemical chain of stuff triggers emotions that would upset them if you didn't feel the same way about it by being non-exclusive.

It's not rational that they should feel any right to exclusivity to you, but it happens.


----------



## Janx (Feb 7, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> And what about the guy that made a mistake once and would never try to seduce your - or anyone elses' - wife?  He should be cast out as well?  That's the problem with this.  You hurt decent folks out of a selfish and silly fear.  You really don't trust your wife enough to spurn another man's advances?  That's on you, bro.  Not your wife, not the imaginary man - you.  And it's not fair to either of them.




As I pointed out, I'm not inclined to go chase down Scott for his past indiscretion.

And I am not suffering from a distrust of my wife under normal circumstances.

But there are people who are pros at the art of getting into people's pants.  As they say, "a shoulder to cry on becomes a @#%^ to ride on."  So there are people who take advantage of such opportunities that causes harm to existing relationships.

As joked about on the last season of Arrested Development, open marriages don't actually work as a ditch to "save a marriage."  One person gets laid.  The other person gets hurt.

We might not be made or good at lifetime monogamy.  But we also may not be good at juggling multiple relationships.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 7, 2014)

First, a disclaimer: My feelings won't get hurt mentioning my youthful indiscretion. I put it out there, It is of the past, maybe someone will learn from my mistake.

second, I enjoy intellectual discourse that leads to a hopeful change toward the better.

Third i agree to the benifits of a closed relationship: 'protecting the herd from socialpathes, protecting the marriage bed from STD's, broken hearts, fractured trust and a whole host of other problems that happen.

but having said that,

I must give a peer to peer warning that this subject has the easy potential of crossing a very thin line that could otherwise get someone in trouble by the moderators, whose concern is for the community at large, and may easily get 2 offending parties banned. I would not like to see anyone ban-hammered. I have seen it happen all too often here and other places. I would like to recommend that this thread to be reconsidered as a viable topic of discussion.

Thank you for everyone's consideration in advance.

Scott-might be heading home for a shot of Dewar's scotch-DeWar


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 8, 2014)

Never been interested in participating in that (though I did date someone who was in the middle of a divorce).
Don't want to.
Would disassociate from anyone that did.

Do what you need to do to be happy, but be frickin' responsible about it. Own up to whatever.

Sadly, I have become aware of what other people are up to far too many times. I just don't need that kind of information about other people. I'm not involved. Don't involve me.

Sort it. Get it done. And keep it to yourselves.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 8, 2014)

Janx said:


> Because it is bad.  When you sleep with someone, you sleep with every STD person that person has slept with.
> 
> Being promiscuous is tactically a bad idea just from the goal of avoiding spreading disease.
> 
> More families would rather their SO not bring home a box of Herpes or have to slice off a part of the income to pay for extra-marital child support.



Are you familiar with the condom?



> More people equate emotional bonding and exclusivity to sex than don't.



Appeal to popularity. And that remains to be actually proven.



> So it really bothers them when they find out their partner has been forking the secretary after work.



We can't really change what adults or teens think. They are tainted. 

We can work on the next generation though. Start teaching a fresh take on sexuality from kindergarden, give kids the information to think critically for themselves and make the decision they think is best, instead of forcing on them social values that are not really respected by people because they are not realistic values and can lead to strife. 

In Sweden they have gender-neutral kindergarden and the Swiss have a very interesting take on sex education. These are steps in the right direction.



> These are fundamental principles of modern society.



Not really, more of agrarian societies. The sexual revolution really shock the tree of traditions and what people call "fundamentals of society". This is just another push toward people being more free without fearing stigma. 



> So you might think of having sex as no more emotional than playing racket ball with somebody.



Sometimes. Sex ain't always special or always that great communion between two people. Sometimes it is just mindless fun and there is nothing wrong with that.   



> But I highly doubt most people do.



Again with the appeal to popularity that is back up by no fact. 



> Or to look at it slightly differently.  Once somebody is having sex with you because they are in love with you, the chemical chain of stuff triggers emotions that would upset them if you didn't feel the same way about it by being non-exclusive.



People have been getting broken hearts for quite sometime. It is the risk of socializing and getting romantically involved with people. 



> It's not rational that they should feel any right to exclusivity to you, but it happens.



Well that is there problem, now isn't? Not something society should push on people, right?


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 8, 2014)

Janx said:


> That's what divorce or breaking up with somebody is for.



Pretty sure that if everyone who's ever had an affair was divorced our divorce rate would skyrocket higher then it already has.

Which just proves that the reason queers like me are destructive to marriage is that after you see how fabulous we are at it while flaunting your rules (or at least as you think we are.  After all, we're all just dirty man-sluts) you get jealous and want some of that too.

Or, to put it another way... humans, as a rule, are pretty bad at monogamy.  Any way you want to slice it, we've been breaking the rules regularly (and with gusto!) for a long, long time.  Now-a-days divorce and separation are more practical options, and it's talked about more.  But don't make the mistake of thinking affairs and "cheating" are a new thing, or even more common, then they used to be.  All that's new is the openness.

Not really sure what my point was other then forgiveness, compassion and understanding are a lot more humane traits to focus on then petty vengeance and stigmatization.  And perhaps if non-monogamous couples weren't so ostracized then people who struggle with it, like, say, half the men on the planet, wouldn't feel the need to to try and hide it and pretend to be good at monogamy which leads to the inevitable pain when, big surprise, they cheat! 

Long story short: when you put someone in a situation where they're punished for being honest (admitting that they don't do monogamous relationships) and punish them for trying to hide it (getting caught cheating), you've put them in a catch-22.   And when you've put someone in a catch-22?  You really shouldn't be surprised when they say " you and your rules, I'm gonna be selfish 'cause you're gonna punish me anyway".  You have to give people a reason to buy-in, you have to give them an incentive to cooperate.  "OBEY OR NOT, YOU'LL BE PUNISHED EITHER WAY" isn't it.



Janx said:


> When you sleep with someone, you sleep with every STD person that person has slept with.



As much as sexual health and safe practices are important, I hate this line.  It portrays sex as this filthy infectious thing that's bad.  Yes, use condoms.  Yes, get tested (regularly).  But this?  This is just an attempt at slut-shaming.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 8, 2014)

I've never cheated, nor have I been cheated on (that I know of, anyway), but I have been cheated with once years ago; been one of those "other men". 

And when I found out she was married (which became quite apparent once I followed her into her home--_their_ home), I went for it anyway, and without any real hesitation. I wasn't initiating cheating--she obviously had made that decision (*washes hands*).

Actually, I hadn't thought about this for years until this thread. Now that I'm married family man myself, I'm more ambivalent on my younger self's attitude.


----------



## delericho (Feb 8, 2014)

goldomark said:


> But who said you need to sware an oath about monogamy to be with someone?




Ah, but there's the rub. You _don't_ need to swear that oath. If you want to go sleeping around, go have at it!

But the social convention is that if you're "in a relationship" with someone then by default you're in an _exclusive_ relationship with that person. And that's _certainly_ true with a marriage, where that oath has indeed been sworn.

And, even so, if you want to go against that social convention, you have the right to do so - just be sure to inform your partner so that he/she can decide whether to continue the relationship with you. If you do not, then that is indeed deception.

(And by all means go and argue that we should have a different social convention. I have no great interest either way. But for now, and until the convention is changed, it is what it is.)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 8, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Unless the problem is the false need for controlling people'S sexuality in the first place. Not sleeping around.
> 
> Have you considered that people are conditioned to think sleeping with other people is bad?



They are of course, but it isn't just a social phenomenon. Monogamy is widespread through the animal world (not universal, but any means, but widespread) and clearly does have a legitimate evolutionary purpose.

There are clearly a number of different social elements that have effectively demonized human sexuality for various purposes, but that's really a tangent. As [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] notes, open relationships or other forms of sexual activity that don't involve a committed relationship cannot be the source of "cheating" or an "affair". If someone doesn't want to be in a monogamous partnership, they don't have to be. If they are, then they incur certain obligations, like fidelity and honesty.


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2014)

This can be a difficult topic for many people to reply to (myself included) because a full answer from them would bring religion into it;  however, I do want to respond to two points from Goldomark and Zombie_Babies:



goldomark said:


> No I'm talking about ending the hypocrisy that leads to affairs existing. We should stop glorifying something that a lot of people can't perform (fidelity). There would be a lot less strife if we just accepted that some people need to fool around or have multple partners.
> 
> These are my thoughts on the subject, to answer BG's question.




My opinion is that if marriage were as easy as breathing or coitus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now - the commitment of marriage IS difficult! It's why we glorify it. We also glorify firefighters and policemen in western society, because not everyone can rise to those callings and perform them day in and day out. It's why we celebrate achievers in different fields -- they are uncommon individuals, and seeing a Buffet, or Einstein, or Jordan or Baryshnikov is an example of diligence and dedication that one can aspire to. To not celebrate something BECAUSE not a lot of people can perform that level of commitment misses the point of recognizing the commitment itself.



Zombie_Babies said:


> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: break one moral 'law' and you'll break more.  Let's apply that to something else, then: A man who jaywalks is a man who will slit your throat.  Break one law and you'll break another - no matter how unrelated - right?  Silly.  It's just silly.
> 
> The problem is that your solution in no way differentiates between the two.




In my opinion it does -- your counter of Jaywalking vs. Homicide would be equating two different types of behavior, negligence to homicide, but the original quote compares one example of trustworthiness to another, lesser, example of trustworthiness (Marital Fidelity vs. Professional Fidelity). A better comparison would be Jaywalking to Running Stoplights, or intentional homicide to -- well, very little, really, western law puts it into a class by itself. In my opinion, yes, a person who cannot keep a vow to a spouse, is more likely to be unable to keep their word to a mere business partner. Not to say I wouldn't go into business with them, I'd just force 'em to sign one heck of a punitive business contract. 

Note most people who are outspoken here are also making a distinction between the mainstream definition of "An affair" versus an open marriage, or polyamorous relationship -- one in which all parties are aware of one another and their intentions toward one another. The subject of polyamory itself is a separate -- and even more loaded -- topic, of which I can say if it works for that unit, then great! It's just one where in my firsthand knowledge has never seemed to work out very well long-term for the people involved.

My wife and I have been married for over 20 years, have never cheated on one another, never had the desire to, and barring any catastrophes I see myself growing old with her and only her. Fortunately, we also grew up in the same local community, and share similar values, so it's never been a source of conflict either. Is marriage hard? It's been damned hard at times, whether it be about money, or family tragedy, or lack of communication with one another -- but I also deem it worth it to have worked through any trouble that came our way, and the incredibly strong bond that we share, almost to being able to anticipate each other's needs without thinking. To be blessed and dedicated enough to have that bond with another person, hopefully for the rest of a lifetime, is something I deeply treasure.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> They are of course, but it isn't just a social phenomenon. Monogamy is widespread through the animal world (not universal, but any means, but widespread) and clearly does have a legitimate evolutionary purpose.



3% of mammals do it. Pretty low. 



> There are clearly a number of different social elements that have effectively demonized human sexuality for various purposes, but that's really a tangent. As <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@_*delericho*_<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> notes, open relationships or other forms of sexual activity that don't involve a committed relationship cannot be the source of "cheating" or an "affair". If someone doesn't want to be in a monogamous partnership, they don't have to be. If they are, then they incur certain obligations, like fidelity and honesty.



Yes, it seems people like to argue against a point I never made.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 8, 2014)

Henry said:


> My opinion is that if marriage were as easy as breathing or coitus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now - the commitment of marriage IS difficult! It's why we glorify it.



Not really. It is "glorified" because it helps control people, not because it is difficult. There is some propaganda boasting how great it is, but why is something that goes against our nature desirable? It is a source of a lot of problems really. We had a huge fight to get divorce legally and to get rid of the social stigma (that still exist), because we had to fight against the idea that marriage was glorious. Eliminating monogamy is just the next push.



> We also glorify firefighters and policemen in western society, because not everyone can rise to those callings and perform them day in and day out.



Police officers are usually vilified. I never heard any one say somethign nice about them after getting tickets. Plus these are people who regularely abuse their powers, but that is another discussion. Firefighters are d-bags. I've spent enough time with some of them. They are generally horrible people with huge egos because a lot of people glorify them. I'm all for paying them good salaries and pensions, their job is very physical and dangerous, but glorify them? Nope. If we start elevating people they sort of become sacred and untouchable, no one should have that status. Don't get me started on soldiers.



> It's why we celebrate achievers in different fields -- they are uncommon individuals, and seeing a Buffet, or Einstein, or Jordan or Baryshnikov is an example of diligence and dedication that one can aspire to. To not celebrate something BECAUSE not a lot of people can perform that level of commitment misses the point of recognizing the commitment itself.



You're comparing apples and monkeys. Sure, Einstein was a smart guy and we want some people to follow in his foot steps. Humanity benefits from this. What is gained from the ideal of monogamy since it creates a lot of problems because we are very bad at respecting it? Do not force people to do something they are bad at, remove the stigma that comes with not respecting that ideal.


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 8, 2014)

just reading the thoughts of a few folks in htis thread make me think of Alex Huxley's Brave New World take on sex and relationships.....


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not really. It is "glorified" because it helps control people, not because it is difficult.




Any close partnership is difficult, and needs work.  A close partnership that is based on emotional bonds is even moreso.  Adding more people and personalities into the mix doesn't make it easier, in general.

It is glorified for many reasons.  Many find that the restrictions are worth the benefits, and that the investment of effort pay off in the long run.



> There is some propaganda boasting how great it is, but why is something that goes against our nature desirable?




Maybe you don't mean it that way, but your wording is just as bad as those who seem to imply that monogamy is for everyone. 

It goes against your personal nature, perhaps.  But just as in games, one should not mistake one's personal preferences for "The Truth".  The needs, desires, and natures of different people may lead to different relationships being easiest for them.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 8, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not really. It is "glorified" because it helps control people, not because it is difficult. There is some propaganda boasting how great it is, but why is something that goes against our nature desirable? It is a source of a lot of problems really. We had a huge fight to get divorce legally and to get rid of the social stigma (that still exist), because we had to fight against the idea that marriage was glorious. Eliminating monogamy is just the next push.




A true marriage is not an environment of control. It never was ment to be, and never will work in that way. Of course there are problems with a control type marriage, because the good marriages I have seen working are those of a partnership. If you look at a partnership like a business partnership, how long do you think a business will last if one of the partners is [if you will pardondon the terms used] screwing over the other? It will be doomed to failure just like a failed marriage.

The problem is marriage today is built on a cracked and crumbling foundation. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying get rid of the building, just rebuild on a proper foundation. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 8, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Many find that the restrictions are worth the benefits, and that the investment of effort pay off in the long run.



All I want is to give people the choice and the way to get there is to not push monogamy, remove the stigma that comes with having multiple partners. 



> But just as in games, one should not mistake one's personal preferences for "The Truth".



I'm not.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 8, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> A true marriage is not an environment of control.



I'm talking control in the broad sense too, not just one indvidual over his or her partner. In this case society controlling individual with norms like monogamous unions.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2014)

goldomark said:


> All I want is to give people the choice and the way to get there is to not push monogamy, remove the stigma that comes with having multiple partners.




I don't think there is any. The bachelor playboy has only positive  'stigma' associated with it. George Clooney, Hugh Hefner, Bruce Wayne. It's portrayed in media as a privileged and enviable thing.

Making a promise then not keeping it? Yeah, there's stigma about that. 

If there's an issue, it's gender based. Women don't currently get that bachelor playboy validation that men do.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 8, 2014)

I think you are seeing it backwards. It is not society forcing the control over the relationship, but rather the couple GIVING the right of regulation to the couple for the mutual benefit to the society as a whole. 

An example of a good mutual benifit is the state of Virginia having an 'archaic' law regulating sex to be between married partners, not for the restrict of the individuals, but the protecting of innocents from acts as incest and such. The state had that law challenged recently, but that did not pass as they saw the greater good in protecting the individual such as a child from being brutally assaulted by molestation.

And please, if you respond to this, be careful how you word so as not to come across as a creepy pro-child-sex advocate as that is wrong in any civilized society. I also want to mention the idea of teaching a kindergartner in sex education is pretty creepy as it is, as was done in post . . . . . found it: 34.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 8, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> And please, if you respond to this, be careful how you word so as not to come across as a creepy pro-child-sex advocate as that is wrong in any civilized society. I also want to mention the idea of teaching a kindergartner in sex education is pretty creepy as it is, as was done in post . . . . .




That's why there are statutory rape laws. Marriage shouldn't be a requirement.
Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Nothing more.
Such a contract should not be required between two consenting adults, nor should there be a need to have the pairing approved by any religious authority. Sex is strictly a matter between those directly involved.
Get over it.
So long as all involved agree to the same set of rules, there shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 8, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> So long as all involved agree to the same set of rules, there shouldn't be a problem.




there in lies a problem. I have seen so many times where both parties say they are in agreement, but it usually came out in the form of great emotional pain that there was a desire for the 'exclusive rights clause'. it is regrettable, and my friends who get hurt in that kind of a mess usually get more emotionally hurt then my physical damage that put me in the hospital 2+ years ago.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> there in lies a problem. I have seen so many times where both parties say they are in agreement, but it usually came out in the form of great emotional pain that there was a desire for the 'exclusive rights clause'. it is regrettable, and my friends who get hurt in that kind of a mess usually get more emotionally hurt then my physical damage that put me in the hospital 2+ years ago.




He'll, I've seen jealousy and hurt in regular friendships which have zero connotation of exclusivity.


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 8, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> just reading the thoughts of a few folks in htis thread make me think of Alex Huxley's Brave New World take on sex and relationships.....




For those who haven't read it here's Brave New World's take

Recreational sex is an integral part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction (sex is encouraged from early childhood). The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt" (which resembles a cartridge belt and holds "the regulation supply of contraceptives") as a popular fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic; sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Thus, society has developed a new idea of reproductive comprehension.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I don't think there is any. The bachelor playboy has only positive  'stigma' associated with it. George Clooney, Hugh Hefner, Bruce Wayne. It's portrayed in media as a privileged and enviable thing.



Interesting that you name only males. Women very much have a stigma attached to it. But I'm not talking about people who are single.



> Making a promise then not keeping it? Yeah, there's stigma about that.



Depends on the culture when it comes to infidelity. Why not free ourselves from drama by just accepting that it is normal to have sex with other people?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Interesting that you name only males. Women very much have a stigma attached to it.




You just - literally - selectively quoted half of my post, and ignored the other half which said exactly what you did about women.

I need you to sincerely assure me that was a reading comprehension error, and not a trolling attempt.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 9, 2014)

or conversely, why not the other societies that see not the wrong of infidelity, change to the better life but more challenging of monogamy?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

Morrus said:


> You just - literally - selectively quoted half of my post, and ignored the other half which said exactly what you did about women.
> 
> I need you to sincerely assure me that was a reading comprehension error, and not a trolling attempt.



You need to stop seing trolling everywhere. 

So, what do you think about the French and infidelity?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> or conversely, why not the other societies that see not the wrong of infidelity, change to the better life but more challenging of monogamy?



They could also shoot themselves in the foot, to make walking more challenging.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You need to stop seing trolling everywhere.




I don't. Only in people I have screenshots of declaring their utter contempt for EN Worlders and their intent to troll them. I'm serious - I need your sincere  assurance that that was a reading miscomprehension, and not a trolling attempt when you quoted half my post and ignored the test. This is my second time asking. 



> So, what do you think about the French and infidelity?




I don't think about the French.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 9, 2014)

I was briefly involved with a woman who was engaged. This was..more than two decades ago (now I feel old). I had taken the semester off from school, moved to Alabama & was living with my aunt, uncle, and younger cousin.  My older cousin was getting married, very informal affair (courtroom, bride's sister wore a t-shirt with a pack of smokes rolled up in the sleeve). Met an attractive girl at the reception/party, had a nice time, she wanted to hang out some more. I went over to her house a few times the next week; no sex but lots of fooling around. It was miles and miles upon miles away from the blue-blood New England three dates till the first kiss I was accustomed to, so it was lots of fun, and she was obviously very into me.  Finally, after a week +, my older cousin stops by and says "just so you know, her fiance is in basic training right now."

She didn't wear a ring and hadn't said a thing about it. I told my aunt that I wasn't home if she called.  And that was it.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 9, 2014)

goldomark said:


> They could also shoot themselves in the foot, to make walking more challenging.



Apples and crows.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 9, 2014)

goldomark said:


> ***"stuff"*** . . . . .So, what do you think about the French and infidelity?




no more different then any other civilized society.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 9, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You need to stop seeing trolling everywhere.




Aw heck, I wasn't going to say something, but . . . . .

peer to peer: do you see where it says "The guvnor" under Morrus' name? It is not a self entitlement, He OWNS this sight. If he sees someone as trolling, chances are he is being protective of his creative work of art, this very nice virtual rpg store to hang out at. I highly recommend you reel it in with the comments. He has put up with a lot less gruff from others. 

He is trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I am telling you this as a friend to a friend.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 9, 2014)

Morrus said:


> If there's an issue, it's gender based. Women don't currently get that bachelor playboy validation that men do.




didn't madonna get the validation? maybe a few others because i am not in the mainstream of pop culture.

besides isn't the only good culture found in yogurt?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2014)

I see folks trying to declare what is, or is not, natural for humans.  I think they may be missing what is most natural for humans: flexibility.

Why must we cling to the idea that one, and only one, mating pattern is "natural" for us?  Why assert that monogamy is the one way?  Or why assert that having multiple partners is the one way.  Why not shift to the idea that, as a species, we follow multiple patterns?  Would not that be the ultimate in successful strategies - the ability to adapt to the needs of the time?

So, we'd then have individuals tuned for each possible strategy, in a constant bid to make sure all our bases are covered.  In times when monogamy makes the most sense, that mode can come to the fore.  In other time, other modes can come to the fore.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> Aw heck, I wasn't going to say something, but . . . . .
> 
> peer to peer: do you see where it says "The guvnor" under Morrus' name? It is not a self entitlement, He OWNS this sight. If he sees someone as trolling, chances are he is being protective of his creative work of art, this very nice virtual rpg store to hang out at. I highly recommend you reel it in with the comments. He has put up with a lot less gruff from others.
> 
> ...



I understand the advice, but there is a lack of knowledge of a private correspondance between Morrus and I.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> no more different then any other civilized society.



Aside from the poles that show they accept cheating more, the lower rates of divorces and that jazz that was in the article that I link?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I understand the advice, but there is a lack of knowledge of a private correspondance between Morrus and I.




Dude, the site's owner asked you a simple question, and you haven't yet answered it.

_tick...tick...tick...tick..._


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

I thought it was a rather agressive bait, with all the French snarkiness. He can PM me if he was serious.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I thought it was a rather agressive bait, with all the French snarkiness. He can PM me if he was serious.




Stating the obvious:

1) he could BAN you if he's serious
2) he could have PMed the question to you if he wanted to, but he didn't.  He asked you publicly, twice, and probably for a reason.
3) the initial posing of the question was utterly void of "French snarkiness".


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 10, 2014)

You know, this thread made for an interesting read, but you guys are seriously derailing it with this trolling, baiting, demanding answers, and what-have-you. I'm fairly sure that Morrus can handle this on his own without the rest of you guys needing to chime in and derail the thread further.

Now, if you guys could get back to talking about affairs and giving me something entertaining to read...

[sblock=*]Excuse my further derailing of the thread.[/sblock]


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 10, 2014)

Henry said:


> My opinion is that if marriage were as easy as breathing or coitus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now - the commitment of marriage IS difficult! It's why we glorify it. We also glorify firefighters and policemen in western society, because not everyone can rise to those callings and perform them day in and day out. It's why we celebrate achievers in different fields -- they are uncommon individuals, and seeing a Buffet, or Einstein, or Jordan or Baryshnikov is an example of diligence and dedication that one can aspire to. To not celebrate something BECAUSE not a lot of people can perform that level of commitment misses the point of recognizing the commitment itself.



If that's what you truly believe, then you should probably wonder why our society pushes _everyone_ towards marriage.  Expecting everyone to be _worthy_ of glory is a silly expectation.  And if you don't have that expectation?  Then you're pushing people towards what you expect they'll fail at.  That hardly sounds moral to me.



Scott DeWar said:


> A true marriage is not an environment of  control. It never was ment to be, and never will work in that  way.



That's one helluva coat of whitewash you just slapped down.  I suggest you do some reading on what marriage was like, particularly the legal rights of the people involved, as recently as the 1800s.  I'd also like you to consider polling through the decades on the reasons men and women marry and, perhaps more importantly, the reason they stay together.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 10, 2014)

The notion that people are advocating "Brave New World" I think misses the point entirely.

There was nothing I saw saying that marriage and natural procreation are unclean, should be considered unclean, or should be stigmatized.

The only notions I saw advocated is that sex should not be tied to or regulated by marriage (in short, marriage is not necessary to or essential for sexual activity), and that unless you are one of the parties involved, it is none of your business. 

Maybe someone has said otherwise and I missed it.

If someone says "I'm OK with ______", and then turn around after _____ happens and declare that they aren't, that person has been dishonest. Maybe it was dishonesty and deception to themselves. Maybe they didn't realize it. But if you've said that you are OK with _______ and then get upset when it happens, that is squarely on YOU. YOU have to do something about it. I suggest this funny thing called "Communication." There's a whole lot of baggage in this culture that people have to work around and overcome.

As a landlord, I've had to learn things about people I didn't ever want to know. People have left behind things I never wanted to find. (Like a box of 'toys') It shouldn't have been necessary, and it is absolutely none of my business. Maybe people need to go back to their own matters.
I firmly believe that if people took the time and energy they devote to being nosey or condemning what other people do in their bedrooms, and redirected it to their own sex lives, the world would be a better place, and they would be a lot happier.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Why must we cling to the idea that one, and only one, mating pattern is "natural" for us?  Why assert that monogamy is the one way?  Or why assert that having multiple partners is the one way.  Why not shift to the idea that, as a species, we follow multiple patterns?




Natural selection, surely? It's unlikely that all of those multiple patterns will be equally good at seeing children through to the point where they pass on their genes in turn, and so those patterns that are better will win out.

It is, of course, true that the patterns that were 'best' 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years ago may not be the patterns that are 'best' now.



> So, we'd then have individuals tuned for each possible strategy, in a constant bid to make sure all our bases are covered.




Yes, but the competition isn't really "humans vs other species", it's rather _which_ section of humanity wins the battle for selection. Does monogamy give my genes a better chance for propagation, or does a non-monogamous approach lead to more success?


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> The notion that people are advocating "Brave New World" I think misses the point entirely.
> 
> There was nothing I saw saying that marriage and natural procreation are unclean, should be considered unclean, or should be stigmatized.
> 
> ...




I think you might have missed a lot,since I said  







trappedslider said:


> just reading the thoughts of a few folks in this threadmake me thinkof Alex Huxley's Brave New World take on sex and relationships.....



 or you may have miss understood the underlined phrase

As in it reminds me of the view points expressed...

EDIT: you might also have a few post on ignored...so that could be it too


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Stating the obvious:
> 
> 1) he could BAN you if he's serious



So he is not serious, like I thought.


> 2) he could have PMed the question to you if he wanted to, but he didn't.  He asked you publicly, twice, and probably for a reason.



And I asked him questions publically and he wanted me to PM him. He could return the curtosy. 


> 3) the initial posing of the question was utterly void of "French snarkiness".



Yeah, just an agressive order. This is not the army. There are ways to ask things.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

Henry said:


> In my opinion it does -- your counter of Jaywalking vs. Homicide would be equating two different types of behavior, negligence to homicide, but the original quote compares one example of trustworthiness to another, lesser, example of trustworthiness (Marital Fidelity vs. Professional Fidelity). A better comparison would be Jaywalking to Running Stoplights, or intentional homicide to -- well, very little, really, western law puts it into a class by itself. In my opinion, yes, a person who cannot keep a vow to a spouse, is more likely to be unable to keep their word to a mere business partner. Not to say I wouldn't go into business with them, I'd just force 'em to sign one heck of a punitive business contract.




Actually, that's entirely my point: The two behaviors (cheating on a spouse and cheating a business partner) really _are _two different things.  The penalties for cheating a business partner are potentially way, way more severe than cheating on a spouse - up to and including jail time, loss of any licenses one may have which, of course, means a loss of potential to earn at the same level, lawsuits resulting in greater material loss than a typical divorce, etc, etc.  It's a wholly different mindset.  You don't get drunk and pick up a new business partner at the bar and accidentally let things go too far.  They really are different from one another.  Again, that's my point.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I think you are seeing it backwards. It is not society forcing the control over the relationship, but rather the couple GIVING the right of regulation to the couple for the mutual benefit to the society as a whole.
> 
> An example of a good mutual benifit is the state of Virginia having an 'archaic' law regulating sex to be between married partners, not for the restrict of the individuals, but the protecting of innocents from acts as incest and such. The state had that law challenged recently, but that did not pass as they saw the greater good in protecting the individual such as a child from being brutally assaulted by molestation.
> 
> And please, if you respond to this, be careful how you word so as not to come across as a creepy pro-child-sex advocate as that is wrong in any civilized society. I also want to mention the idea of teaching a kindergartner in sex education is pretty creepy as it is, as was done in post . . . . . found it: 34.




Umm ... dood?  There _are _other laws that protect the kids from molestation (er, that's a lie - laws don't protect people, they're a mechanism for punishing those that don't obey).  Look up some child abuse cases in that state.  Without looking myself, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority - if not all - see the alleged perp charged with something other than breaking the 'no sex unless it's married sex' law.

And I'm so bleepin' sick of people trying to pretend that allowing whatever sex they don't morally like automatically means that kids are gonna get touched.  That's messed up and I'd hate to see how that sort of person's mind works.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I also want to mention the idea of teaching a kindergartner in sex education is pretty creepy as it is, as was done in post . . . . . found it: 34.



It might seem creepy for some, but kids are curious about sex and are sponges at that age. It is the perfect time to educate them about anatomy, reproduction, sexual activities and health.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

delericho said:


> Natural selection, surely? It's unlikely that all of those multiple patterns will be equally good at seeing children through to the point where they pass on their genes in turn, and so those patterns that are better will win out.
> 
> It is, of course, true that the patterns that were 'best' 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years ago may not be the patterns that are 'best' now.




Exactly.  For that reason, nature rarely completely eliminates anything.  For example, in genes we have dominant and recessive - the recessives are pushed to the back, and just kind of ride along only being expressed occasionally, so that if the need does arise, they are selected for and the species goes on, and we are more flexible to the changes that come in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years.  The same logic follows for ideas (memes) - we rarely completely eliminate an idea, we just push it into the background.  

Our mating patterns are a blend of genetic and memetic drives.  We should expect there to be some patterns in the population that aren't the current dominant ones.  In terms of long--term strength, we want that diversity to ride along with us.  Winnowing it down to "one true way" is a weakness if the social or physical environment changes. 



> Yes, but the competition isn't really "humans vs other species", it's rather _which_ section of humanity wins the battle for selection.




Who the competition is with is irrelevant.



> Does monogamy give my genes a better chance for propagation, or does a non-monogamous approach lead to more success?




That is a question for the ages, not for the current moment.  We, here and now, don't get to (or need to) answer that question.  Nature will sort it out for us - the truth will ultimately be found by empirical results, without our having to pass judgments.  Plus, as you have noted, the answer is context-dependent. What is best here and now may not be the best in 100, or 1000 years.  So, why not recognize that fact that there is no single correct answer?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> It might seem creepy for some, but kids are curious about sex and are sponges at that age. It is the perfect time to educate them about anatomy, reproduction, sexual activities and health.




The sponge analogy breaks down - kids don't just absorb information exactly as you give it to them.  They also *process* information.  But, if they try to do so without proper context - life and emotional experience - they can process it poorly, and that can go badly for the child.

This is why some things you can get away with in an adult context wind up being abuse for a child.  For example - repeated insults among friendly adults is often found acceptable, as adults are expected to have life experience enough to understand that the insults are not intended to harm.  A child lacks the experience to make that distinction, and if you repeatedly insult them, it amounts to emotional abuse, and you can mar their emotional development significantly.

Sex is one of those things where it seems that the very young lack the context to be able to process information about it properly.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Exactly.  For that reason, nature rarely completely eliminates anything... (much snipped)




All true. Can't disagree with anything in this post.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The sponge analogy breaks down - kids don't just absorb information exactly as you give it to them.



It's an analogy that is regularly used. Like all analogies they have their limits, I am aware of it.   



> Sex is one of those things where it seems that the very young lack the context to be able to process information about it properly.



Not really. There are plenty of books for kids that explain where babies come from that do not traumatize them. You just need to adapt it to what they can process and understand. The Swiss sex box has plush genetalia for the kids examine and play with. This is no different than kids playing doctor, except for the adult supervision and guidance of course.

A lot of kids just do not get sexual education at home or get an incomplete/innaccurate one. This should just be part of any curriculum, like hygene and home cooking. Do they still teach those?


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 10, 2014)

I should say, there is a difference between the simple mechanics of reproduction, and the associations, in terms of the immediate and more subtle consequences.  Immediate consequences include the chance of pregnancy and the risk of STD's.  Subtle consequences have to do with what happens inside peoples heads: How they think about themselves, how they think about the other; how issues of responsibility and trust are impacted.  Plus, the complications of strong self interest and internal chemical influences.  Plus, social issues (agree with them or not; they are present).

I'm pretty confident that a child can understand the simple mechanics.  All the rest seems to be understandable only as the child reaches higher levels of maturity.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not really. There are plenty of books for kids that explain where babies come from that do not traumatize them. You just need to adapt it to what they can process and understand.




On anatomy and physical health, sure.  I've no problem with that.

On sexual activities, as you put it?  That's a different kettle of fish, depending on what you mean by "activities".


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> On anatomy and physical health, sure.  I've no problem with that.
> 
> On sexual activities, as you put it?  That's a different kettle of fish, depending on what you mean by "activities".




*Mod note:*  Section redacted for Grandma.  Sorry, but that's a level of detail inappropriate for this site.  ~Umbran

Granted I'm not a professional and I'm sure it all can be improved, but you get the spirit of things.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 10, 2014)

delericho said:


> Does monogamy give my genes a better chance for propagation, or does a non-monogamous approach lead to more success?



That entirely depends on you.  If you're a good father, then the monogamous approach is probably better for you.  If you're a  father, then going for as many spawn in as many places is probably better for you.  The same reason you'll get women settling down with the "nice guy" but sleeping around with the "bad boy".

This is well documented in other animals, though for obvious reasons it's purely observational data with humans.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 10, 2014)

What I've read about primate reproductive behaviors is that there is a huge variation, both across species, and within them.

I wouldn't take that to say that particular behaviors aren't preferred for particular social policy goals (say, for less transmission of STD's).  I do take that to mean that for individuals finding simple fixed rules will likely be hard (if not impossible).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 10, 2014)

To say ... this is a space where what is advocated can be rather at odds with what is actually done.

To have more partners, one would prefer to have less risk of STD's.  If others have fewer partners, there will be less STD's.  Therefore, one who wants to have more partners will encourage others to have fewer partners.  The whole situation seems inherently unstable.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm pretty sure that the prevalence of STDs throughout history is a decent indicator of just how monogamous we tend to be.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> *Mod note:*  Section redacted for Grandma.  Sorry, but that's a level of detail inappropriate for this site.  ~Umbran
> 
> Granted I'm not a professional and I'm sure it all can be improved, but you get the spirit of things.




I understand the point.  Not sure I personally agree that it is appropriate for kids, though.  That you present it in a way that seems "soft" to us does not mean it is usefully preparing kids to deal with the issues - because emotionally, they just aren't ready to deal with sexual relationships at that age.

The fact that it generated complaints, and that we have a Grandma Rule such that I had to redact it, rather indicates that our culture, on the whole, is not ready for such to be presented to children on the whole.  If you have kids, do what you will, but don't expect to see that in public school kindergartens any time soon.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I understand the point.  Not sure I personally agree that it is appropriate for kids, though.  That you present it in a way that seems "soft" to us does not mean it is usefully preparing kids to deal with the issues - because emotionally, they just aren't ready to deal with sexual relationships at that age.



What will happen? They will start crying and have nightmares? Kids play doctor all the time, it seems like a pretty natural way to express their curiosity and sexuality, if we can call it that.



> The fact that it generated complaints, and that we have a Grandma Rule such that I had to redact it, rather indicates that our culture, on the whole, is not ready for such to be presented to children on the whole.



This is what I'm advocating. Change that culture and start where it will take root: the kids. Why just say it is the way it is if you believe it the right thing? It leaves the status quo in place. 



> If you have kids, do what you will, but don't expect to see that in public school kindergartens any time soon.



I see this like vaccines. Kids need to be vaccinated cause bad stuff will happen if they aren't. At some point parents need to be taken out of the equation cause they can't make the right decision for kids. Kids aren't property, they are adults in the becoming. They need to be given all the proper tools to maximize their chances at a succesful life as adults. What if someone said math or reading shouldn't be taught to kids? It would be pretty ridiculus. It is the same for sex ed. Parents resisted when laws were passed to keep kids in school instead of letting them go work in shops or in the fields, but it was the right decision.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> At some point parents need to be taken out of the equation cause they can't make the right decision for kids. Kids aren't property, they are adults in the becoming. They need to be given all the proper tools to maximize their chances at a succesful life as adults. What if someone said math or reading shouldn't be taught to kids? It would be pretty ridiculus. It is the same for sex ed. Parents resisted when laws were passed to keep kids in school instead of letting them go work in shops or in the fields, but it was the right decision.




I'd rephrase that a mite: at some point, parents need to be taken out of the equation because *SOME* won't make decisions in the best interests of the *kids or society as a whole.*

As was noted by someone a LOT smarter than myself:


> “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
> 
> 
> ― Isaac Asimov




So, when the facts are clear, there is a definite role to be played by the society as a whole in trumping the desires of the few.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'd rephrase that a mite: at some point, parents need to be taken out of the equation because *SOME* won't make decisions in the best interests of the *kids or society as a whole.*
> 
> As was noted by someone a LOT smarter than myself:
> 
> ...



Seems appropriate.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The fact that it generated complaints, and that we have a Grandma Rule such that I had to redact it, rather indicates that our culture, on the whole, is not ready for such to be presented to children on the whole.  If you have kids, do what you will, but don't expect to see that in public school kindergartens any time soon.




I get what you're sayin' but I don't think this particular instance is really support for the idea that some aren't comfortable with the topic being taught to kids.  There's some other layers at play here.  

But yeah, I have to agree - our culture isn't ready.  We're still terrified of nudity but incredibly comfortable with violence.  It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense but it's damned sure the case.

EDIT: Derp, forgot half the point.  Anyhoo, this goes to what goldo is saying.  It's not like society is just gonna magically become comfortable some day.  It needs to be pushed in that direction and doing something like goldo suggests - starting with kids - may be the push that's needed.  I'm not saying it is but I am saying that it may be better than just sitting around waiting for change to miracle itself into our reality.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> And I'm so bleepin' sick of people trying to pretend that allowing whatever sex they don't morally like automatically means that kids are gonna get touched.  That's messed up and I'd hate to see how that sort of person's mind works.




Kids cannot give consent. Neither can animals, for that matter. That's why we have the term "consenting adults".


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> What will happen? They will start crying and have nightmares?




If done really badly?  It can lead to kids having horrible misconceptions and hampered social and emotional development regarding human sexuality.

Now, we already have a lot of misconceptions and such.  But at least it isn't systemic.  The unintended consequences can be kind of nasty when you start doing this to lots of people.



> Kids play doctor all the time, it seems like a pretty natural way to express their curiosity and sexuality, if we can call it that.




Well, setting aside how sometimes even those interactions between kids don't end well - the power dynamic is entirely different.  Child-adult interactions are not the same as child-peer interactions.



> This is what I'm advocating. Change that culture and start where it will take root: the kids. Why just say it is the way it is if you believe it the right thing? It leaves the status quo in place.




Because I don't believe the public school system can or will handle it better for children of such young age.  There are both well-meaning people, and folks with agendas and axes to grind that have hefty influence on public school curriculums, who turn subjects into things they should not be.  When you're hanging views of human sexuality into the mix, that's a recipe for disaster.

If the educational system were really solid and healthy, I might be willing to consider it, if you had good behavior science backing you up rather than just personal assertion.  But, as a practical matter, there are many things we'd need to fix before we could address such with kids that young.



> At some point parents need to be taken out of the equation cause they can't make the right decision for kids.




The science behind vaccination is pretty clear.  I am not convinced the science on sexuality is behind you on this - the child psych world may not agree that this is a good idea.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Kids cannot give consent. Neither can animals, for that matter. That's why we have the term "consenting adults".



A European court had an interesting take on the matter regarding Germany's prohibition on home schooling. 







> In September 2006, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German ban on homeschooling, stating "parents may not refuse... [compulsory schooling] on the basis of their convictions", and adding that the right to education "calls for regulation by the State". The European Court took the position that the plaintiffs were the children, not their parents, and declared "*children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents' decision for home education because of their young age.... Schools represent society, and it is in the children's interest to become part of that society. The parents' right to educate does not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience*."


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If done really badly?  It can lead to kids having horrible misconceptions and hampered social and emotional development regarding human sexuality.



If done badly all sort of things can have bad results. Rhinoplasty comes to mind. I do not think anyone is advocating incompetence.



> Well, setting aside how sometimes even those interactions between kids don't end well - the power dynamic is entirely different.  Child-adult interactions are not the same as child-peer interactions.



You're saying the whole student-teacher dynamic is problematic? I'll imagine that is not what you're saying, so why would that one area of education be more problematic than math? 



> Because I don't believe the public school system can or will handle it better for children of such young age.  There are both well-meaning people, and folks with agendas and axes to grind that have hefty influence on public school curriculums, who turn subjects into things they should not be.  When you're hanging views of human sexuality into the mix, that's a recipe for disaster.



No more than math, english class, [insert secondary language class], history, gym class, home ed, etc. Sex ain't really that special when you come to think of it. 



> If the educational system were really solid and healthy, I might be willing to consider it, if you had good behavior science backing you up rather than just personal assertion.  But, as a practical matter, there are many things we'd need to fix before we could address such with kids that young.
> 
> The science behind vaccination is pretty clear.  I am not convinced the science on sexuality is behind you on this - the child psych world may not agree that this is a good idea.



Aren't those also just personal assertions on your part? 

It has been happening in Chicago. They seem to base their program off a document backed by a lot of credible professionals who agree with me. There seems to be a lot of benefits to sex education.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> A European court had an interesting take on the matter regarding Germany's prohibition on home schooling.




What does that have to do with my statement?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 10, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> What does that have to do with my statement?



it looks like the quote is referring to a child's
Ability to give consent.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> What does that have to do with my statement?



Like HS stated, it is about a kid's ability to give consent and parents not always being able to make all the choices for kids.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Like HS stated, it is about a kid's ability to give consent and parents not always being able to make all the choices for kids.




The child's choice is not a factor in the Germany decision. It's whether the state or the parent is empowered to act as a factor for the child in choosing their schooling.

My statement was about a child's ability to consent to sexual acts. Parents cannot give that sort of consent.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> The child's choice is not a factor in the Germany decision. It's whether the state or the parent is empowered to act as a factor for the child in choosing their schooling.
> 
> My statement was about a child's ability to consent to sexual acts. Parents cannot give that sort of consent.



Why would there be touching?


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Why would there be touching?



I don't know, you tell me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> *My statement was about a child's ability to consent to sexual acts.* Parents cannot give that sort of consent.



Are you trolling?


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Are you trolling?



You quoted, without context, my response to a third party's comment; linked to my quote an article that has nothing to do with what I said; and when I point that out, you ask me if I'm trolling?

Hah.

No, Goldomark, I am not trolling you.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I understand the point.  Not sure I personally agree that it is appropriate for kids, though.  That you present it in a way that seems "soft" to us does not mean it is usefully preparing kids to deal with the issues - because emotionally, they just aren't ready to deal with sexual relationships at that age.



... you know the thing that really irks me about this viewpoint?  Kids used to (and some still do) grow up on farms.  With animals.  _Breeding _animals.  They weren't sheltered from sex, vulgar animal nudity, and so-on.  Kids used to have a pretty good idea of the mechanics of sex, having watched it happen in animals, well before they got any education.

Kids only get weird about sex because the adults around them get weird about it.  Just like many things, children are easily manipulated.  And when the adults treat something as normal and not a big deal, the kids do the same.  When the adults treat it as shameful, dirty, to be hidden, and something to scream about?  The kids do the same.  Nothing to do with how damaging knowledge of sex is to kids, all about idiot adults projecting their screwed up minds onto them.

*Edit: *Talking this over with my husband, he reminded it goes further then I stated.  Children used to (and again, in some places still do) get elbow deep in the guts of an animal to help with birthing.  Because their small hands made it easier to untangle the babes when they were choking on their own umbilical cords, and other such things.  Prior to child labor laws you had children going out and earning their share of the household income.  Not 16 year olds, eight year olds.  Because their small delicate hands were quicker on the loom.  Children are quite easily hard core.  Whether it's preferable to preserve their "innocence" or something like that is one debate.  Whether they can handle knowing harsh realities of life, including sex, death, war, working, and so-on?  That's settled by a few millennium of human history.  Fooling yourself otherwise isn't for their benefit, it's for yours.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> You quoted, without context, my response to a third party's comment; linked to my quote an article that has nothing to do with what I said; and when I point that out, you ask me if I'm trolling?



You mentioned kids not being able to consent, I linked an article about kid's consent. The link is pretty obvious.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You mentioned kids not being able to consent, I linked an article about kid's consent. The link is pretty obvious.



Completely different contexts, and the article doesn't have anything to do with consent. It's a completely superficial and valueless comparison. Stop trying to tell me what I said or what I was talking about, Goldomark; you either don't understand or you're trolling; either way it's not worth my time.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Completely different contexts, and the article doesn't have anything to do with consent. It's a completely superficial and valueless comparison. Stop trying to tell me what I said or what I was talking about, Goldomark; you either don't understand or you're trolling; either way it's not worth my time.



Wow. Don't put your faults on me, dude.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Kids cannot give consent. Neither can animals, for that matter. That's why we have the term "consenting adults".




What does that have to do with what you quoted?  I said nothing about kids and consent.  I've seen people say things like 'if we allow ____ sex then what's next?  kids?  animals?' and that's all crap.  100%, total crap.  It's been hinted at in this thread that if out of wedlock marriage is seen as ok then that opens up an avenue for kids to be touched.  That's what I was talking about cuz it's absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> What does that have to do with what you quoted?  I said nothing about kids and consent.  I've seen people say things like 'if we allow ____ sex then what's next?  kids?  animals?' and that's all crap.  100%, total crap.  It's been hinted at in this thread that if out of wedlock marriage is seen as ok then that opens up an avenue for kids to be touched.  That's what I was talking about cuz it's absolutely ridiculous.



Yes, I agree. It's ridiculous and it's a stupid argument, because kids and animals cannot give consent. Gay marriage? Two adults. Straight marriage? Two adults.  Group marriage?  Well, still all adults.  Adult & Animal? Uh, no. No consent. Adult & child? No consent. Arguing that a relationship between two consenting adults is the same as between an adult and child, or an adult and an animal, is fundamentally ignorant.

I'm agreeing with you, dude.

EDIT FOR EXTRA CLARITY


> What does that have to do with what you quoted?



My statement is the commonly understood legal and morally basis of your position; it is _why_ "its absolutely ridiculous". It might not be _your_ basis (maybe you have a deep seated belief that tall people and short people are ridiculous together), but it's the common reasoning for such a position. 


Sheer insanity.

Again, yes, you are right.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

I find it interesting that we need the consent of an animal to marry it, but not to slaughter it and eat it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I find it interesting that we need the consent of an animal to marry it, but not to slaughter it and eat it.




Heh.  When we kill an animal for food these days, we generally make it as quick and human as possible.  When you marry someone, it lasts a long time, and if it goes badly, it isn't humane at all...


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Heh.  When we kill an animal for food these days, we generally make it as quick and human as possible.  When you marry someone, it lasts a long time, and if it goes badly, it isn't humane at all...



Niiiice.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Yes, I agree. It's ridiculous and it's a stupid argument, because kids and animals cannot give consent. Gay marriage? Two adults. Straight marriage? Two adults.  Group marriage?  Well, still all adults.  Adult & Animal? Uh, no. No consent. Adult & child? No consent. Arguing that a relationship between two consenting adults is the same as between an adult and child, or an adult and an animal, is fundamentally ignorant.
> 
> I'm agreeing with you, dude.
> 
> ...




D'oh!  Didn't see the link, braj.  My bad, carry on.


----------

