I've been with my wife 21 years (married for almost 20 years). I would not trade a day of it! :thumbs2:
Printable View
I've been with my wife 21 years (married for almost 20 years). I would not trade a day of it! :thumbs2:
Ya know (no pun intended), I have been reading this tread, and have not become involved until now, but I must say: congrats Major and Silencio: consider yourselves blessed. That was always my dream: family and love. But things never seemed to work out. But, that was my problem. I had this impossible dream which only a few achieve: to find a woman and be with her happily until the end of days. Some dreams die hard, and I have almost given up...but giving up completely is not me. Just the other day my ex called...after over a year...an ex who claimed her last child was mine: later proved wrong. I paid for the baby, and support, for over two years, too. Tried living together, too.Found her "chats" with guys and listings on dating sites, too. Yeah, I was taken. Yeah, I am a pushover. But, why would I not believe her? Oh well, live and learn, right???? NOOOO. Live and hurt is more like it. Sad to say, I will never be the same again. Who would have thunk it??? How could someone do something like that? Welcome to this Brave New World.https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Major Kong
PS:
The ex left messages on all my phones: I never called her back.
First off, I am married and have been for about 6 years. The love of my life she is, and even though she drives me nuts sometimes I can not think of my life without her. She is the shiznit.
As Cleetus stated, the movement for men's rights in divorce and custody hearings do make it more of a deterant for women to get revenge with the taking him to the cleaners in a divorce. Also, I heard there is an organization (sorry can't remember what it is) that is pushing for states to change their child custody statutes.
In Wisconsin, under normal circumstances if a couple gets divorced then both the father and mother automatically get joint physical custody of the children. To make it any different, it has to be taken to court. It was found that when this was implemented the divorce rate in Wisconsin dropped noticeably.
Marriage as a family institution is rapidly loosing any value or importance in today's society. When you have members of the governement talking about family values and the importance of them, yet they are involved in sex scandles like Clinton's Oval Office BJ. They talk about how it is good to be married but yet tax the sh*t out of married couples.
In the days of old, it seemed that society place marriage as an important social aspect. Maybe too much as the book Peyton Place and the reaction of it proved. Now it seems that a person can be financially and socially better off living together. No legal paperwork to have to go through if you split up. Taxes are easier to file and you don't get reamed up your arse because you are married. You also don't inherrit your partners credit rating.
In typing this, it has occured to me that society has made it easier to stay or become single, while at the same time making it a burden to be married. How f*cked up is that?
You know (no relation to Ya_Know), I made one glaring mistake in this entire thread when I posted it.
I am not suggesting we try to BAN marriage or eliminate it entirely from society.
There ARE large numbers of happy, successful marriages out there, and I would never want to take anything away from any of them (including the gay ones).
What I am opposed to is the glorification of marriage, the teaching that it is the highest ideal one can aspire to in a relationship, or the common belief that it is the "natural" state of mature humans... the way youths are taught to dream about marriage as some sort of love paradise that they can arrive at and live happily ever after.
Corollary to that, I am opposed to prejudice against people choosing other lifestyles besides marriage. Spinsters and bachelors are looked down on by many... one could also classify gay marriages in this category too, as an alternative to "traditional" marriage that has a large backlash against it.
Another example here would be bigamy and polygamy. Personally think any man who wants two wives is a nutcase (and I am sure many women would agree to the vice-versa of that)... :D ...but as long as the three of them are consenting, rational adults, they should have the right to define their relationship in whatever way they want, without "conventional" morality getting in their face.
Comment on 1st paragraph: You know (https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif)... Once you spend some time t hinking about it, there's nothing truly "natural" about looking out for someone else's needs above your own. Being a youth leader, I see less and less young people contemplating marriage as a utopia. The need for intimate closeness remains, but they're not being offered anything of equal value instead, ergo the disillusionment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward Clam
Comment on 2nd paragraph: Although I'm a big proponent of marriage as being the best way to officialize your exclusive commitment to someone else and stand by the fact that it is the most satisfying, stable, and ... relationship a couple can have. That being said, I'd agree with you that discriminating against someone just because they were not married makes no sense. One's worth as a human being is not found in marriage or any other type of relationship.
Comment on 3rd paragraph: I don't think anyone entering into a "multi-partner" relationship could even use morality as an explanation for their decision. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
Anyone aware of human nature would have to see that as specious commitment at best, and more of a "practical exchange of services and sharing of resources" than a loving commitment.
And this type of situation would beg the question: "But what about the children?"
I'm getting married next month.....you guys trying to deter me?? :eek2: :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
I couldn't disagree with you more. It is natural for parents to look out for the needs of their children, is it not? Wolves see to the needs of other wolves in their packs. The idea that a human might want to meet the needs of another human is not at all unusual to me.
First paragraph: why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
Second paragraph: I will agree with you that such a relationship would not be stable for most people. However, I have seen documentaries and read personal accounts that strongly disagree with your second sentence.
Third paragraph: so what about them?
If I was trying to do anything, it would be to make sure you went into it with your eyes open to the flaws and pitfalls of the situation, and prepared to accept the bad that comes with the good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coaster Creator
If you are honestly approaching it with that attitude, then IMHO you can actually hope to achieve a great marriage. :D
Get married. You'll be fine. Just have your eyes wide open. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Coaster Creator
Get really really drunk right before the wedding, stumble down the isle, sway at the front, the puke all over her dress. No one will ever forget that wedding :thumbs2:
Well first time around ended in BEYOND disaster...but since I was pregnant at the time and scared...I wasn't thinking real rational when I went through with it.
This time I have my eyes WIDE open... We been together for over 2 years and living together for awhile...I haven't killed him yet...so thats a good sign... :devil:
I can imagine! Being pregnant sure does wonders for those lovely hormones!!Yes, a very good sign(that you haven't killed him yet). Good luck!! :thumbs2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Coaster Creator
Sure you could! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wayward Clam
You argued previously that divorce rates was a factor of why you were not favorable to marriage. The fickleness of humans and the (oftentimes unrealistic) expectations of the spouses toward each other and/or the marriage union in general demonstrate that egocentrism rules man's heart.
That aspect of human nature usually prevails over others. There is a nurturing instinct that exists, but can be properly expressed only in a relationship literally smothered in altruistic (other centered) love.
There is no morality involved in being sexually promiscuous. Rather, the absence of morality or virtue would be the motivating factor. Although, that would also depend on one's basic definition of morality, so it's pretty hard to argue either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward Clam
It is already difficult for a man to see to one woman's emotional needs. I have a hard time understanding this type of relationship as anything more than a semi-permanent casual exchange of services. There is no devotion involved, no commitment, no vow to act in a way that will better another person. It is essentially self-centered, which defeats the very idea of giving yourself to another person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward Clam
There is no exclusivity here either, so the development of a lasting intimacy is handicapped from the start. There is the appearance of intimacy without the personal responsability required to make it meaningful.
For me, being faithful to my wife doesn't just mean sexually, it especially means emotionally. Multi-partner relationships imply that no one will benefit from the ultimate security provided through an exclusive union.
I'd be curious to read some of those sources you mention so I could learn more about the subject. Most of the accounts I've read point to this type of relationship being at best casual and temporary, with the occasional instance where 2 of the partners involved usually leave the multi-partner setting to found a couple together.
There is so much destructive potential to a child's personal well-being here I don't even know where to start or how to put my thoughts together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward Clam
It does indeed appear to be dependent on ones definition of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
For me, sex is many things... it is a way to express love, it is pleasure, it is healing, it is intimacy, it is a biological process used to reproduce, it is something that fills us up with hormones and irrational desires...
But where in any of this could it possibly be considered immoral?
How can safe sex HARM someone?
Until and unless it involves nonconsent, which includes immature people having sex.
You see, to me marriage sounds a lot more self-centered than what I would define as true love and respect for someone else. Marriage is you saying to someone else, "I don't trust you to love me enough, so I need rules, laws, traditions, social pressure, and your personal vow of honour before the God you believe in to make sure that you don't betray me."Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
If you can't be secure in your partner's love without that, how do you know that they really love you?
Additionally, love is not constant in humans... it ebbs and flows as people grow and evolve. Yes, there is something to be said for people working to find new ways to love each other as they grow old together. My own relationship has seen a lot of that over the years.
But if you look at these 1,163,000 people that got divorced JUST in 1997, JUST in the United States. That's 1,163,000 people who went into their marriage thinking that the marriage was going to work out. They honestly believed that they were going to be the ones to make it... or they wouldn't have gotten married! And they were WRONG. One MILLION people, in only one year, in just the USA, were WRONG about what could very well be the most important decision they've EVER made in their lives. How do you know, when considering entering marriage today, that you aren't one of these people?
Granted, there are people who get married knowing their chances are poor or not intending to stay married long, etc. but I suspect they are statistically rare... feel free to prove me wrong if you can and are interested enough to.
Where do you get the idea that such a relationship could not include lasting intimacy or personal responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
(snipped because everything wouldn't fit into one post)
How so? I'm not following you. I don't believe that a single, exclusive union CAN provide you with this ultimate security you are describing... and that if you are feeling that in your life, then it is an illusion, albeit a pleasant one and hopefully one that will turn out to be true in your case. Logically, it seems to me that having two partners would INCREASE your chances of having emotional security...Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
Hmmm... these may be hard to track down through the swamp of my memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
One book that comes to mind is "Three In Love", which came through my bookstore several years back. A description of it from Amazon.com can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...stomer-reviews
Four out of the ten customer reviews there do NOT give the book 5 out of 5, but if you actually read the two zero out of fives, you begin to wonder if the reviewer hit the wrong button posting their review, based on their positive comments.
I also recall documentaries seen on the Discovery Channel, and possibly other channels, although I admit I don't know what they were all called. I think one of them was one or more episodes from a series called The Sex Files.
Come to think of it though, two more sources just came to mind, but they are more related to my basic concepts of what is natural in sexuality than threesomes in specific... although they have a LOT to say on the subject of promiscuity being natural for humans...
"Demonic Males", found at Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...01521?v=glance. This book will mean nothing to you unless you believe in evolution. It is primarily more about violence in humans / chimpanzees than sexuality or love, but a great deal of related information in it helped form my opinions of what is "natural" in human instincts. Academic "authorities" DO have a lot of disagreements about the information found in this book and the slant it is written with, as the reviews at Amazon will illustrate.
The last one that comes to mind is Desmond Morris' series "The Human Animal." I am sure this won't be hard to find for anyone who goes looking for it.
Well I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems to me that having three or more adults in a home would result in more time, attention, money, love, and support to be spread around whatever kids are there... until you give me more specific objections it is hard for me to either agree or disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
I'll give you an example from my own life. My mother divorced twice, my father only once, both are currently married. This gives me a total of FIVE parents. Yes, it has been a rocky road. No debate there! But now... I have five people who consider me a son... who are there to give me the love, support, help, advice, whatever, that I need... where most "normal" people only have two, possibly less.
How can this be a bad thing?