Posted on 10/28/2009 10:15:17 AM PDT by Reaganesque
(CNN) -- If you were to judge the success rate of monogamy by the sex lives of public figures, perhaps couples should change their marriage vows to say, "Till a tempting new partner do us part."
Talk-show host David Letterman recently joined former presidential candidate John Edwards, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on a long list of politicians and entertainers (think Jude Law) who have admitted having sex outside their marriage or committed relationship.
But do they just illustrate the realities of modern life?
In the age of hookups, friends with benefits and online dating, and as human life expectancy grows, is it still reasonable to expect people to pair up and stay monogamous until death do them part?
"It's realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language," said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.
Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, "It's within the realm of human potential, but it's not easy."
Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of "Strange Bedfellows" and "The Myth of Monogamy," said serial monogamy may be more realistic -- a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.
Possibilities in polyamory?
For some, even serial monogamy seems too restrictive.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
We are dealing with people who have the emotional maturity of your average 12-13 year old. As any parent knows who has raised a 12-13 year old, they know that the child believes they know everything there is to know and if you correct them in any way, shape or form, they whine about how unfair and tyrannical you are. Even the best, most informed, heart-felt and lovingly delivered advice you can give them is rejected out of hand because you are hopelessly un-hip in their eyes. And now, these retarded adolescents run our government and, increasingly, our lives. Heaven help us!
“Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?”
My fiancee says yes.
once they all started spinning for Bubba & Lewinsky you cluld see where this was headed
Seems to me, ancient societies adopted this outlook, just prior to their collapses.
Then you better say yes too!
Q. What is the same between former ESPN baseball analyst Steve Phillips and former US President Bill Clinton?
A. Both had extramarital flings with homely interns
Q. What is the difference between former ESPN baseball analyst Steve Phillips and former US President Bill Clinton?
A. Phillips suffered consequences
I think it basically boils down to the commitment level of the individual. If you can’t keep a commitment of any kind, you have no business getting married. People have to work at it if it’s important to them. Nobody ever said it’s easy. All depends on whether a person wants it or not.
“It’s realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language,” said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.”
If someone is a person that is so selfish that they cannot possibly remain monogamous in a comitted relationship, that person ought to remain single for the remainder of his/her days rather than ruin the lives of successive partners.
“Then you better say yes too!”
So I’ve learned, lol!
Can't be repeated often enough.
Some people are rather selfish and could never live outside of their own bubble.
See post 9.....you beat me by seconds.
My wife thinks highly of it too! :-)
No one ever said it is "easy". It takes alot of work and committment, two attributes that are sadly lacking in today's hedonistic society.
In reading this, I got an inkling that perhaps CNN knows something about a high level, perhaps even Presidential, affair... and they are laying the groundwork for it’s revelation.
LOL, always a good sign.
Sorry.....I didn’t mean to steal your thunder. Great minds think alike. Or something like that.
So far, after 20 years of marriage, Mr. Peel has not raised $20 million.
It's worked for me for the past 25 years and, God willing, will continue to work for at least the next 25 as well.
All the men listed were powerful, prominent or wealthy although in Spitzer’s case he was explicitlly paying for it. Women are drawn to such men so I would yes it is harder for such men given the increased temptation to stay monogamous. Most monarchs in the past had mistresses since everybody knew marriage back then were for political reasons.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Great post! BTTT
The 1970s introduced the concept of "open marriage" in which couples stayed married but were free to date other people.
More recently, polyamory -- the practice of having romantic relationships with multiple people at the same time with the full knowledge and consent of all involved -- has been getting a lot of attention.
Really? The 1970's? More recently, polyamory?
This is Orwell's old saying "Some things are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them." in practice.
Does anyone with any sense really think that these idiotic concepts began in the 1970's or that polyamory is a recent development?
Thanks!
Baby Boomers think they invented every non-traditional sexual arrangement in history.
I say yes, after 20 + years of marriage.
One husband at a time is enough to deal with.
Aside from ethics, observe the share intellectual dishonesty of these people. There are very few people that can play Beethoven concerto and ice-skate beautifully. The institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years across cultures, and most of the married people has been faithful. The comparison is simply fallacious.
Monogamy is difficult, but less so than, say, living with an std, or getting enough money to support yourself and take care of yourself without sharing that effort with anybody. Don’t married people live longer than single people? Especially married men live longer than single men, right? (I know nuns also live a long time, but they also pool their efforts and live with a spiritual routine and lifestyle limits that lower their health risks.)
Even when people live together without marriage, there is often one partner who wishes the other wanted to get married. That lifestyle takes its toll on the unsatisfied person. What’s so hard to grasp in the idea that bodies and hearts go together, and that friendship and long-term loyalty add something to relationship, not detract from it?
Of course, marriage gets a lot more plausible when God is a part of it. I remember being on a train in Spain and seeing older couples holding hands and enjoying their journey together. More people need to see for themselves what a long and happy marriage looks like. Although many wouldn’t be mature enough to recognize it for the gift that it is, some would.
God bless my in-laws, who have been married for over 50 years, and clearly still have that spark, and that gratitude for having each other.
Liberalism in a nutshell...
These people fundamentally misunderstand our purpose for being. We are NOT here for personal fulfillment or self-actualization. We are here to pass along our genes and raise the next generation.
Monogamy is an evolutionary social institution, one that has proven over the centuries to have the best success at fulfilling our fundamental purpose.
But, the over-aged children (liberals) will never understand that.
That's PRICELESS.....
It is if you want it to be.
Or find a partner with similar views on matters regarding sex.
How can you be sure he’s faithful to you though?
Good point! Since being faithful to your spouse is “un-realistic,” are ethics also unworkable? If your word means nothing in marriage, and it is even considered to be unreasonable to expect you to be true to your word, can it have any meaning elsewhere? I don’t think so. If honesty and integrity within marriage are outdated concepts, then any sense of ethics goes out the window too, doesn’t it?
The whole premise of contemporary liberalism is founded on character flaws and weakness. Rather than preach self discipline and strength of character, which is definitely a philosophy fraught with harsdship and periodic failure, they just say ‘being weak and self-indulgent is human nature; accept it’. That perspective will certainly make life easier in the short term, but unfortunately it invariably leads to self-loathing. That is truly human nature, like it or not.
PING
And to think, you only get 20 for murder.
CONGRATS to you! xshub and i will celebrate 25 years in June.
Just sayin'....
I have a gun (or two, maybe three) around the house. Statistically speaking, even dividing my collection in half, my wife is one of the most heavily armed women in the entire universe. Monogamy is the ONLY option.
Keeping one Mrs. Wagglebee happy is more than I can hand most of the time, I couldn’t handle two or more.
The politics of liberation where rights exceed duties. Ironic that both Marxism and libertarian philosophy hinges on the freedom of the individual. With Marx the state will whither away and you end up with happy free individuals. Libertarianism doesn’t take it that far, nor does it ignore duties. It’s more realist than Utopian Marxism. But, if anything, we are headed for a Brave New World TV Circus where the masses are drugged out with sex and a brain-dead live-for-today mentality — hedonism unimpeded! Ah, yessss... bring in the clowns. Wait, we are the clowns!
I agree with them; things have changed and different rules should apply.
People should also be free to murder other humans if they “feel” it is what they want to do.
The old laws on morality just don't apply anymore. We are more enlightened than in the old days.
You nailed it right there!
Heh. :)
Yeah but do two lawyers really count? :-)
Thanks! Congratulations to you as well!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.