i was trying to get a discussion going regarding acceptable morals within the marriage contract, whether stated or implied.
most of you have played along, and others would like to state their side with opinions - i respect that since this is what i was shooting for.
others have taken a personal route, and are searching for further relational answers within the confines of my own experience, this is not really the discussion that i was looking to have, forgive me if i have lead you all astray.
in reading through history, even within a religious environment, there were liberties given within the marriage as to sex, and my question is to the mores of the day, within the confines of our judeo-christian upbringing - should this practice continue?
If either party is looking for something outside of the relationship, whether physical or emotional, it probably means that something is not quite right with the relationship itself. Or at least, that something within the relationship can be (and ought to be) improved.
Basically, that people cheat because some need in the relationship is not being fulfilled.
I personally think that the need should be acknowledged and accepted, and some solution should be found that works for both people in the relationshipā¦ denying the need is going to cause problems, acting on it in an unacceptable manner (to the other person) is going to cause problems too. A compromise might be that porn and occasional strip clubs visits are fine. Or even, ājust donāt talk about her to meā. Or, for that matter, for the two of you to introduce more novelty within your own sex life.
I think it should really be founded on open communication, acknowledging individual needs, and finding a solution as a couple.
I would define cheating as any behavior that is outside of the agreed upon stipulations of the marital contract, which differs from couple to couple and can also change over the course of a marriage.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
If either party is looking for something outside of the relationship, whether physical or emotional, it probably means that something is not quite right with the relationship itself .[/quote]
This sounds lovely but oh so idealistic to me. I think it is unrealistic to expect one person to meet all the emotional, intellectual, sexual, and other ever-changing āneedsā (a term used rather lightly as most āneedsā are really āwantsā) of another over the course of a lifetime.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
If either party is looking for something outside of the relationship, whether physical or emotional, it probably means that something is not quite right with the relationship itself .[/quote]
This sounds lovely but oh so idealistic to me. I think it is unrealistic to expect one person to meet all the emotional, intellectual, sexual, and other ever-changing āneedsā (a term used rather lightly as most āneedsā are really āwantsā) of another over the course of a lifetime.[/quote]
Yeah, thatās kind of why I followed it up with the wholeā¦ acknowledge the individual āneedsā and find a solution that works for the couple ā i.e., that both partners agree to and understand.
in reading through history, even within a religious environment, there were liberties given within the marriage as to sex, and my question is to the mores of the day, within the confines of our judeo-christian upbringing - should this practice continue?[/quote]
Any indication as to what the conditions of that permission was? I mean, after 13 or 14 kids, I could see how neither party would be much interested in recreational banging with each other.
in reading through history, even within a religious environment, there were liberties given within the marriage as to sex, and my question is to the mores of the day, within the confines of our judeo-christian upbringing - should this practice continue?[/quote]
Any indication as to what the conditions of that permission was? I mean, after 13 or 14 kids, I could see how neither party would be much interested in recreational banging with each other.
[/quote]
this is a good questionā¦
are we too civilized to consider the concubine?
are we too religious to consider a harem?
many, many, many wimmenz in history had menz as side or play things.
this iterferes with our western christian upbringing, but is it something that was useful and should be considered?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I would define cheating as any behavior that is outside of the agreed upon stipulations of the marital contract, which differs from couple to couple and can also change over the course of a marriage.
[/quote]
hey Snapper! glad you could comment~
so, you are a forward thinker, i like that.
lets move on, what would you do if confronted with a new direction in the marriage contract that would include additional partners?
[quote]Edgy wrote:
in a relationship, if a man brings home his full paycheck, is involved in the family emotionally, takes care of all things expected, yet has a relationship on the side, is that to be considered cheating?
[/quote]
Yes
No
[quote]
i am having a hard time figuring this out.
nowhere in the marriage vows is there a reference to remaining sexually faithful, just love,honor,cherish, sickness and in health, death do us part kinda stuff.
the unspoken marriage contract, at least in the west, does expect fidelity, but is that how it is supposed to be? Historically, there were liberties given to both sides in a relationship, maybe itās time revisit this experience?
anyway, i need your thoughts, cause i am either on to something here, or way off base, and discussing this relationship quandary with a bunch of weight lifting meat heads may clear this up.
thanks![/quote]
Itās not complicated.[/quote]
altho i usually appreciate your well thought views on some issues, Pat - this time you have left simplistic judgemental responses, without any explanation.
this is not what i expect out of you~[/quote]
Itās not complicated. Cheating is sexual in nature and a direct violation of the sanctity of the relationship in the most intimate way. The most intimate way. Once that line is crossed, itās permanent.
Self destructive behavior or destructive friendships may damage relationships but they donāt attack the very nature of the relationship itself. They erode the relationship over time but corrective action can save the one where it may not save the other.
There is destroying a relationship from the outside, in and then their is nuking it instantly with one big blast. An extra-sexual relationship is a killer for most. Itās possible to make it through, people do it, but it takes a lot from both parties to make it work.
There is no such thing as an āopen relationshipā, those are two people who are going to be divorced, or they donāt care about each other and the relationship is only a mutually beneficial thingā¦for a time.
[quote]pat wrote:
Itās not complicated. Cheating is sexual in nature and a direct violation of the sanctity of the relationship in the most intimate way. The most intimate way. Once that line is crossed, itās permanent.
Self destructive behavior or destructive friendships may damage relationships but they donāt attack the very nature of the relationship itself. They erode the relationship over time but corrective action can save the one where it may not save the other.
There is destroying a relationship from the outside, in and then their is nuking it instantly with one big blast. An extra-sexual relationship is a killer for most. Itās possible to make it through, people do it, but it takes a lot from both parties to make it work.
There is no such thing as an āopen relationshipā, those are two people who are going to be divorced, or they donāt care about each other and the relationship is only a mutually beneficial thingā¦for a time.[/quote]
but it is complicated.
we are not discussing a total breakdown of the relationship, just an outsourcing, if you will, of the sexual part.
intimacy is more than sex, sex is recreational, it is not ethereal.
how can you make the claim that there is no such thing as an open relationship? how can you make that assertion? it sounds like you consider this as a disgusting chain of events that is the result of a destructive personality, and what you are not considering is the relationship building that it can create.
srsly, i am surprised at you taking this position. judgmental and pious. totally not what i would expect.
sanctity of the relationshipā¦ the marriage is sacred? or is it a legal agreement made within the confines of the county in which the license is procured?
[quote]Edgy wrote:
in reading through history, even within a religious environment, there were liberties given within the marriage as to sex, and my question is to the mores of the day, within the confines of our judeo-christian upbringing - should this practice continue?[/quote]
Could you cite some examples of these liberties? Iām not sure where you are going with this.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
in reading through history, even within a religious environment, there were liberties given within the marriage as to sex, and my question is to the mores of the day, within the confines of our judeo-christian upbringing - should this practice continue?[/quote]
Could you cite some examples of these liberties? Iām not sure where you are going with this.[/quote]
Roman times - the marriage is between families, and it is expected to have a few lovers for both the man and wife throughout their marriage to complete it.
Ancient China, rulers and their bureaucrats (for lack of a better term) had many wives, and concubines
Mohammed - many wives and concubines
Moses - many wives
Ancient Egypt up to the Ptolemies - many wives and concubines
this is not a secret, it is within recent times that this practice has been frowned upon
[quote]Edgy wrote:
in reading through history, even within a religious environment, there were liberties given within the marriage as to sex, and my question is to the mores of the day, within the confines of our judeo-christian upbringing - should this practice continue?[/quote]
Could you cite some examples of these liberties? Iām not sure where you are going with this.[/quote]
Roman times - the marriage is between families, and it is expected to have a few lovers for both the man and wife throughout their marriage to complete it.
Ancient China, rulers and their bureaucrats (for lack of a better term) had many wives, and concubines
Mohammed - many wives and concubines
Moses - many wives
Ancient Egypt up to the Ptolemies - many wives and concubines
this is not a secret, it is within recent times that this practice has been frowned upon[/quote]
Donāt forget David and Bathsheba. Solomon and his women. The Bible never says anything about monogamy until it speaks to those who are ādeaconsā and ābishopsā in the church. And marriage was simply a declaration of union in front of witnesses. The Jews and Romans needed laws for control. If people would quit trying to interpret the Bible weād all be better off.
intimacy is more than sex, sex is recreational, it is not ethereal.
[/quote]
Sex is the foundation of intimacy. It is not recreational in a committed relationship. Itās serious fucking business (LOL). Just because itās fun doesnāt mean there isnāt more to it than that.
intimacy is more than sex, sex is recreational, it is not ethereal.
[/quote]
Sex is the foundation of intimacy. It is not recreational in a committed relationship. Itās serious fucking business (LOL). Just because itās fun doesnāt mean there isnāt more to it than that.[/quote]
thanks Steelie - but have you not been intimate without having sex?
can you have intimacy with another man that does not result in a homosexual act?
[quote]theBeth wrote:
If people would quit trying to interpret the Bible weād all be better off. [/quote]
[/quote]
I happen to disagree. It needs to be interpreted. Correctly.
The fact that interpretations will differ shouldnāt altogether drive us away from making them.[/quote]
oooh - Edgy hates to disagree with Sensei Pushā¦
i would request that you either retract that statement, or expand upon it - in terms of interpreting books such as the bible, this leads to heresy and cult activitiesā¦ am i wrong?
āSo in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.ā
If oneās actions require lies, deception and betrayal itās tough to figure that it doesnāt violate this age-old axiom ā an axiom that is applicable in every area of life not just sex.[/quote]
does the relationship of marriage exist outside of religion Pushie?
the quote from the bible above does not even relate to marriage, but to the relationships that we have with other people in our lives.