Boxing Ring (1 Viewer)

[Rich]

Oh, and speaking of quotes from my favorite author, here's one Rich will like:

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."

And that was in the 1880s!

Can I use it as a sig?

 

[Kraj]

Be my guest. Just give Mr. Wilde his props.

 

[KenHigg]

... I would argue the vast majority of people who desire to have only one partner and have that partner promise to only be with them and believe that's the only way a relationship can be healthy are -at the root- afraid of something.

Not intending to ignore the remainder of your reply, let's chase this rabbit for minute...

If you haven't been there, then I can see how you couldn't possible comprehend this; The reason I elected to commit to my wife was not out of fear of anything, nor do I feel any kind of majority of the married community feel motivated to stay married out of the fear of anything. I think I stay committed to my marriage to my wife because, among other reasons, I feel good and complete when I lay down with her at the end of the day. If you want to twist that around and say that I'm afraid of not feeling great or because I'm afraid I may not feel like a complete person, then that's up to you. But it sounds like a detrimental and poisonous attitude to have towards life...



Edit: Now I can see where one may wish to stay married out of the fear of having to pay alimony, otherwise...
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself )

 

[Rich]

nor do I feel any kind of majority of the married community feel motivated to stay married out of the fear of anything.

maybe some of them stay together for fear of upsetting their children?

 

[Rich]

Be my guest. Just give Mr. Wilde his props.

No, I prefer this one
"In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

 

[Kraj]

If you haven't been there, then I can see how you couldn't possible comprehend this;

Speaking of detrimental and poisonous additudes....

The reason I elected to commit to my wife was not out of fear of anything, nor do I feel any kind of majority of the married community feel motivated to stay married out of the fear of anything. I think I stay committed to my marriage to my wife because, among other reasons, I feel good and complete when I lay down with her at the end of the day.

Sorry, but I don't see any reference to monogamy here; you've completely replaced the word with "committment" and "marriage". This is what bothers me about the treatment of sexuality in this country: all the extra baggage we tack on.

Monogamy is about sex. Period. Marriage and committment are about relationships. Period. You can be monogomous to a person without being married or even committed to them. And you can be married and committed and have sex with other people. I resubmit to you that the reasons monogamy has become an essential component of marriage and committment are fear-based. I would also argue that the requirement of monogamy is the a key factor in the breakdown of marriage as an institution.

 

[Kraj]

No, I prefer this one
"In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

Other than him, apparently.

 

[KenHigg]

Speaking of detrimental and poisonous additudes....
.

Why

Sorry, but I don't see any reference to monogamy here; you've completely replaced the word with "committment" and "marriage". This is what bothers me about the treatment of sexuality in this country: all the extra baggage we tack on.

Hum.. I've always felt that they're kind of interchangable when used within context of the discussion we're having. And just to try and play by your google-it type rules, so does dictionary.com (Sorry, I know that was a cheap shot )

Monogamy is about sex. Period.

Sometimes,

Marriage and committment are about relationships. Period.

Key, but maybe not so much a 'Period'

You can be monogomous to a person without being married or even committed to them.

I'll buy that one...

And you can be married and committed and have sex with other people.

Good luck on this one...

I resubmit to you that the reasons monogamy has become an essential component of marriage and committment are fear-based.

And I re-submit my opposition to that view. BTW - It hasn't 'become' a component, it's been that way for quite some time

I would also argue that the requirement of monogamy is the a key factor in the breakdown of marriage as an institution.

So off base.. From my perspective at least...

 

[Kraj]

Why

Because of the "you couldn't possibly comprehend" comment.

Hum.. I've always felt that they're kind of interchangable when used within context of the discussion we're having. And just to try and play by your google-it type rules, so does dictionary.com (Sorry, I know that was a cheap shot )

Not hardly a cheap shot. But if you look at that definition, they're not interchangable. There's four definitions listed; all are relevant to the topic but only two refer to marriage, the other two refer to sex.

Sometimes,

...as long as you accept the marriage-based definition as a possibility. So, that's valid.

Key, but maybe not so much a 'Period'

Do marriage and committment apply to something other than relationships?

Good luck on this one...

I'm having good luck with this one, thank you very much.

And I re-submit my opposition to that view.

Care to offer an explanation? Your opposition so far has been contending that commitment is the same as monogamy, which according to the definition is it not even though they are closely related.

BTW - It hasn't 'become' a component, it's been that way for quite some time

If by "quite some time" you mean the last century or two, then yes, you're correct. However, marriage has existed for many thousands of years and monogamy was not a part of it until very recently.

"If you're talking about the history of the world and not just the last two centuries, the proportion of the world populated by monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion — just Western Europe and little settlements in North America," said Nancy Cott, professor of history at Harvard University.

So, on a historical timeline monogamy as a part of marriage is a very new concept.

So off base.. From my perspective at least...

I think that goes without saying. But do you have any counterargument?

 

[KenHigg]

Can I pick just one reply to remark on? You pick...

 

[Rich]

Oh answer them all, this is supposed to be a boxing ring, fight man, fight

 

[KenHigg]

Oh answer them all, this is supposed to be a boxing ring, fight man, fight

ok ....

Give me a few minutes...

 

[KenHigg]

]Because of the "you couldn't possibly comprehend" comment.

- OK, then how about "I can see how it's possible that you don't understand" (Which is what I meant anyway...)

Not hardly a cheap shot. But if you look at that definition, they're not interchangable. There's four definitions listed; all are relevant to the topic but only two refer to marriage, the other two refer to sex.

- Another attempt at a technical diversion from the real issue

...as long as you accept the marriage-based definition as a possibility. So, that's valid.

-

Do marriage and committment apply to something other than relationships?

- Since monogamy can be requirement of marriage, I'd say there are some gray are here in our debate, yes

I'm having good luck with this one, thank you very much.

- I didn't know you were married?

Care to offer an explanation? Your opposition so far has been contending that commitment is the same as monogamy, which according to the definition is it not even though they are closely related.

- In which line did I say that?

If by "quite some time" you mean the last century or two, then yes, you're correct. However, marriage has existed for many thousands of years and monogamy was not a part of it until very recently.

- Since you and I live in the here and now, let's stay focused

So, on a historical timeline monogamy as a part of marriage is a very new concept.

- You were just born a few hundred years late

I think that goes without saying. But do you have any counterargument?

I think I'm getting that headache again...

 

[Rich]

]-

I'd say there are some gray are here in our debate, yes

Hell I nearly misread that as "there are some gay are here in our debate"

 

[TessB]

Yes, it's called fear. Fear of being hurt, fear of inadequacey, fear of being left for someone better, fear of not being socially accepted, fear of catching a disease, fear that the person doesn't really love you, fear of being used, etc. Let me pre-emptively clarify by saying these are not the only reasons people are monogomous. It's a simple preference for many. But I would argue the vast majority of people who desire to have only one partner and have that partner promise to only be with them and believe that's the only way a relationship can be healthy are -at the root- afraid of something.

I completely agree and identify with that. I have to admit some things about myself.
1. I hold my husband to unrealistic standards. I do not want my husband having lustful thoughts about another woman. When confronted with images on TV that I cannot compete with by today's standards of sexual desirability, I shrink inwardly. Most often, my husband is extremely sensitive and will change the channel until the scene has passed. Other times, I'll just quietly walk out of the room to get a drink or visit the bathroom until the coast is once again clear.
2. The reason I attempt to hold my husband to these unreasonable demands is completely out of fear.... and need. In order to ... ahem...enjoy myself... sexually.... <<fans face to try and keep the blushing at bay>> I need to feel sexy and desirable. If I know that my husband is fantasizing about someone else, then well quite bluntly, my ego is shot and I'd not be able to think of myself in those terms. Although physically, since I'm a woman, the act would still be possible... if I were a man I would be flaccid. (Again to put it quite bluntly, but I'm just trying to put it in terms everyone hopefully understands.)
3. My needs and demands are quite selfish. After all, the poor guy is human. But it's something I am not at all prepared to acquiesce on.
4. It will, every single year that passes, be more and more difficult. And by the time I'm 80, I have no idea how I will be handling it. I mean... I've been a master of delusion most of my life.... but at 80... well, THAT would be QUITE a feat. My only hope could possibly be to become senile yet satisfied. LOL
5. I cannot believe I just shared that with everyone whilst completely sober!

 

[Rich]

. I cannot believe I just shared that with everyone whilst completely sober!

Come back again when you're drunk, that was fascinating

 

[TessB]

Come back again when you're drunk, that was fascinating

LMAO!
That's why I love you guys.

 

[KenHigg]

Hell I nearly misread that as "there are some gay are here in our debate"

You're a trouble maker

 

[KenHigg]

I completely agree and identify with that. I have to admit some things about myself.
1. I hold my husband to unrealistic standards. I do not want my husband having lustful thoughts about another woman. When confronted with images on TV that I cannot compete with by today's standards of sexual desirability, I shrink inwardly. Most often, my husband is extremely sensitive and will change the channel until the scene has passed. Other times, I'll just quietly walk out of the room to get a drink or visit the bathroom until the coast is once again clear.
2. The reason I attempt to hold my husband to these unreasonable demands is completely out of fear.... and need. In order to ... ahem...enjoy myself... sexually.... <<fans face to try and keep the blushing at bay>> I need to feel sexy and desirable. If I know that my husband is fantasizing about someone else, then well quite bluntly, my ego is shot and I'd not be able to think of myself in those terms. Although physically, since I'm a woman, the act would still be possible... if I were a man I would be flaccid. (Again to put it quite bluntly, but I'm just trying to put it in terms everyone hopefully understands.)
3. My needs and demands are quite selfish. After all, the poor guy is human. But it's something I am not at all prepared to acquiesce on.
4. It will, every single year that passes, be more and more difficult. And by the time I'm 80, I have no idea how I will be handling it. I mean... I've been a master of delusion most of my life.... but at 80... well, THAT would be QUITE a feat. My only hope could possibly be to become senile yet satisfied. LOL
5. I cannot believe I just shared that with everyone whilst completely sober!

Hum...

To start with, just from reading your posts, you come across as being a very charming person. I'm guessing your husband see's much more in you than just an object of physical pleasure. I'm also guessing that when you looked into each others eyes and said I do, is wasn't out of any kind of fear.

 

[TessB]

Hum...

To start with, just from reading your posts, you come across as being a very charming person. I'm guessing your husband see's much more in you than just an object of physical pleasure. I'm also guessing that when you looked into each others eyes and said I do, is wasn't out of any kind of fear.

Firstly, why thank you kind sir, for describing me as charming.
Secondly, of COURSE my husband sees much more in me than just an object of physical pleasure. We share so much other than that aspect of our lives, which is why I'm not concerned about losing any of that at this point. However, this IS a very gratifying part of my personal life that I'm not keen on losing THAT.

Consider this. My legs do not identify who I am, and if I lost them, I'd still be me.... but I'd CERTAINLY miss them and all the pleasures they've enabled me to experience through dancing and moving in whichever way I wished.

I think it's easy to say that if something in particular is lost, to look on the bright side and consider all you have left. But there would still be a void. And gardening, for example, would not be a fullfilling replacement. LOL... Gardening x ?hours = ?hours Sexual pleasure. I'd be fried to a crisp and have leathery skin to boot!