Open relationships have drawbacks

Badger Herald ^ | 2-14-06 | Darryn Beckstrom

[SJackson]

I learned a new word, polyamory.

[GladesGuru]

The "polyamorists" are going to learn some new words - Herpes, HIV, genital Warts, Hepatitis, and the old ones, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, ad nauseam. Like lunch, there is no such thing as free sex.

[SJackson]

Yes. Wouldn't want to inject things like marriage in the issue.

[SittinYonder]

But a better definition may be cheating without the guilt.

Still a better definition may be cheating without worrying about the jilted husband/boyfriend coming in and shooting the wife/girlfriend and the lover.

[Argus]

using the word “relationship” to define the aforementioned association diminishes the significance of a monogamous relationship between two people.

and using the word "marriage" to define any "relationship between two people" diminishes the significance of the exclusively man/woman bond.

[papertyger]

Yes. Wouldn't want to inject things like marriage in the issue.

SJ, I'm not disagreeing with you, but people don't know *how* to be married anymore. Even the "marriage councillors" don't know what's what in the long term.

We have a society that is constitutionally incapable of practicing the Christian concept of marriage, but the Christian concept of marriage is the only one we know.

[Clemenza]

A major problem is that the legal system has "dumbed down" marriage so much, that it truly is nothing more than a financial contract. Add declining religious devotion (as opposed to religious "practice") and hypersexuality among the postwar generations, and you have the situation we have today.

Men are, by our nature, non-monogamous. This is as true for humans as it is for the rest of the animal kingdom. This is why polygamy was the rule, rather than the exception, in most societies, while mistress taking was common, among those who could afford it, in even nominally monogamous societies. However, the bonds of Christian society (and Jewish society after the abandonment of polygamy in the disaspora), kept the one man, one woman ideal alive as the standard that all were encouraged to follow. This, in many ways was better for most men (who no longer had to contend with the wealthy taking a large share of available women) and women (who now had a more equitable relationship than under polygamy).

With serial monogamy (ie people on their fifth divorce) and "open relationships" becoming more common, you can say we are reverting to the past. One key difference is the fact that now WOMEN are taking on multiple partners. This is not good for several reasons, both psychological and physical.

[Clemenza]

You all may find this of interest.

[papertyger]

One key difference is the fact that now WOMEN are taking on multiple partners. This is not good for several reasons, both psychological and physical.

My analysis largely mirrors your own with this one exception; I don't believe women taking multiple partners results in psychological and physical maladjustments.

I believe women are taking multiple partners *because of* psychological and physical maladjustment.

[rbg81]

This type of relationship is great for the man, terrible for the woman. A whole generation of women will wake up in their early 30s and realize that men their age are chasing women ten years younger then them. Kiss any real chance of marriage or kids goodbye. Well, at least there's always Hagen Daas.

[firebrand]

Even for those who did not subscribe to open relationships, this practice brought the whole moral tenor of the times down in the sixties and seventies. I thought it was over and going back the other way. I guess I was wrong.

[antaresequity]

Disgusting...

[Search4Truth]

Just another symptom of a sociopathic society.

[BobDobbs9911]

Pretty soon this will lead to polygamy and polyandry.

[presidio9]

But thus us all hunky dory in your book, correct?

[BobDobbs9911]

It's always best for the men to be older and the women younger. Let the career women be like men: smoke, drink, carouse while their biological clock is ticking.

Men will kick them to the curb and get a younger honey who wants to stay home and have children and treat her man like a king. YES!!!!!! No reason that men have to be treated like horse dung by a Type B woman when you can trade the older car in for a newer model.

[Clemenza]

Not really. I see what has become of the female portion of our population, and it has made a large section of them unmarriageable.

Stable relationships are important, for society and the individual, especially as we age and we hit the Viagara years.

[Melas]

Lots of recent studies indicate that women aren't as biologically monogamous as previously thought. Biologically speaking, their offspring have a better chance of survival overall if they are of differing paternity.

[Question_Assumptions]

Using sexual dimorphism as an indicator (i.e., men are not that much bigger than women), it suggests that men have been far more monogamous than it's now popular to admit. Men are promiscuous when the view sex as recreational and woman as unworthy of commitment. When men view women as worthy of respect and commitment and sex as more than recreational thrills, monogamy usually wins out.

[Question_Assumptions]

The bigger problem will occur when they are in their 70s and 80s. Hagen Daas isn't going to visit them in the nursing home, nor will it help pay for their social security and healthcare. Everyone shoudl be required to spend some time in a nursing home as a young person. Really brings the future into focus.