🚀 go-pugleaf

sorlin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven J Orlin) wrote:
>
>In article <4kn97n$o9p@nuhou.aloha.net>, George  <smooth@aloha.net> wrote:
>>I'm looking forward to the day the whole Internet becomes just one big singles
> bar  :-)
>
>
>It already is.   That's how I found my love.   Except that for us it
>wasn't quite a bar.  -more like a vacant park bench. :-)
>
>
>
>Steve
Yeah, I haven't noticed anyone coming through here serving drinks ;-)

-j-

I dont get it. All you talk about is sex. YES! I am interested in sex,
but... It is harder to find people to just go out with than it is to
find someone to sleep with.

I have been married or taken for the last 10yrs. I find all of the
mental gymnastics tedious at best. The amount of money single guys
spend to avoid (or try to avoid) the void of not having a partner
amazes me (guilty). 

Maybe if everyone wasnt looking to open their date like a christmas
present it would be easier to get a date.

It's my opinion and take it for what it it worth.

Chip

<  have been married or taken for the last 10yrs. I find all of the
mental gymnastics tedious at best. The amount of money single guys
spend to avoid (or try to avoid) the void of not having a partner
amazes me (guilty). >

I've been known to do that. I started to analyze myself why am I doing it as an originally very romance-loving 
faithful and sincere guy. Guess what? I figured it out.
The _only_ thing that kept repulsing me from a loving, faithful monogamous partnership... is monogamy. A 
self-imposed giving up of freedom.

Why? Am I some kind of pervert? 
Not at all. If I can believe the book I'm reading (History of Sex, published in 1953 in London) monogamy was 
imposed upon the people only around Middle-Age by the Christian Church which labeled everything "sinful" 
that could possibly draw people away from religious zeal. Before the Church started to exterminate most any  
"sinful" pleasure from peorple's lives with their prohibitions, it was quite frequent and acceptable to have 4 -5 
wives or husbands in Europe. It was a happy world, and no one made much fuss about a roll in the hay.

I imagined myself finding a woman who would be able to live in a such free-love, equal ground relationship 
with me. (A swinger, by todays description.) The very moment I imagined a such person, a passionate love 
and feelings of happyness and belonging took me over like wildfire exploding. Whoa! I was amazed of what 
erupted in me in just a few seconds. There is no problem with lack of emotions, or commitment, here! It's only 
this brain-dead monogamy crap that kept me subconsciously away. The moment I understood that a lifelong 
commitment to one person and sexual pleasure while understandably related, do not overlap each other 
100% at all, I knew what I need to do.

I contacted the local swinger's club, and signed up for all programs. I put out ads in their local mag, and I 
look forward to do the same on a national level. I know now that if I am to find Miss Right (-for-me) I will find 
her somewhere in the swinger's world.  It will be someone in who the notions of pleasure and wrongness have 
_NO_ (zero, nada, zilch, zippo) connection.

Wish I figured this out earlier.  :-)  Oh well, better late than never.

George

In article <4kvf6u$s4q@nuhou.aloha.net>, George  <smooth@aloha.net> wrote:
><  have been married or taken for the last 10yrs. I find all of the
>mental gymnastics tedious at best. The amount of money single guys
>spend to avoid (or try to avoid) the void of not having a partner
>amazes me (guilty). >
>
>I've been known to do that. I started to analyze myself why am I doing it as an originally very romance-loving 
>faithful and sincere guy. Guess what? I figured it out.
>The _only_ thing that kept repulsing me from a loving, faithful monogamous partnership... is monogamy. A 
>self-imposed giving up of freedom.
>
>Why? Am I some kind of pervert? 
>
>Not at all. If I can believe the book I'm reading (History of Sex,
>published in 1953 in London) monogamy was imposed upon the people only
>around Middle-Age by the Christian Church which labeled everything
>"sinful" that could possibly draw people away from religious zeal.
>Before the Church started to exterminate most any "sinful" pleasure
>from peorple's lives with their prohibitions, it was quite frequent
>and acceptable to have 4 -5 wives or husbands in Europe. It was a
>happy world, and no one made much fuss about a roll in the hay.

So you see monogamy as a giving up of the freedom to have sex
with whomever you like.  Eeeeeyeh.

You're forgetting that back then they had all those marriages
mostly as a way of gaining political support among your closest
warlords.

You've got half an answer:  it's not enough to see that the church
imposed monogomy; you have ask why there were so many polygamous
marriages in the first place.

Remember:  just because it was done in the past doesn't make it 
right.  In today's society with all the STD's floating around,
it makes even less sense.

Lastly, your argument is specious:  just because *you* say you
aren't a pervert doesn't mean you *aren't* a pervert.  Perversion is
defined by the society you live in.  That's why the federal laws
leave the definition of pornography up to local standards.

				Robert
-- 
--------------------------
Robert Becker                                      robertb@world.std.com
Erstwhile bicyclist, avid father, longtime breather

Hmm. Well, it's got a longer history than that. And a cross-cultural 
history. If you read Native American legends, they are full of 
partnerships between men and women, and these seem to be mainly 
monogamous. In fact, there are several legends where someone who deserts 
the woman who loves him is punished, somehow, for his cruelty. And where 
a wife who is unfaithful is likewise punished.

And you have Homer... where Odysseus' wife weaves and unweaves his shroud 
so she can put off the suitors... and she is faithful to him. Although he 
is not really, but then, he gets punished for succumbing to the sirens...

Then there are tales from other cultures... many cultures found that love
and marriage between one man and one woman worked. It *does* provide an
environment to raise children, and many cultures decided that they wanted
children to be raised. It also provides a partnership for working.  It
sometimes provided land rights and, in higher classes, joining of powers.
But that was not true of the majority of people, who were not high class. 

None of this means that what you find right for you is wrong, nor that 
what I find right for me is wrong. However, you are selecting history to 
justify your desires. I am wondering why you need to justify them?

--Louise

> In article <4kvf6u$s4q@nuhou.aloha.net>, George  <smooth@aloha.net> wrote:
> ><  have been married or taken for the last 10yrs. I find all of the
> >mental gymnastics tedious at best. The amount of money single guys
> >spend to avoid (or try to avoid) the void of not having a partner
> >amazes me (guilty). >
> >
> >I've been known to do that. I started to analyze myself why am I doing it as an originally very romance-loving 
> >faithful and sincere guy. Guess what? I figured it out.
> >The _only_ thing that kept repulsing me from a loving, faithful monogamous partnership... is monogamy. A 
> >self-imposed giving up of freedom.
> >
> >Why? Am I some kind of pervert? 
> >
> >Not at all. If I can believe the book I'm reading (History of Sex,
> >published in 1953 in London) monogamy was imposed upon the people only
> >around Middle-Age by the Christian Church which labeled everything
> >"sinful" that could possibly draw people away from religious zeal.
> >Before the Church started to exterminate most any "sinful" pleasure
> >from peorple's lives with their prohibitions, it was quite frequent
> >and acceptable to have 4 -5 wives or husbands in Europe. It was a
> >happy world, and no one made much fuss about a roll in the hay.

-=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote:

[snip]

>
>None of this means that what you find right for you is wrong, nor that 
>what I find right for me is wrong. However, you are selecting history to 
>justify your desires. I am wondering why you need to justify them?
>

Good point.  In actuality, there is plenty of recent, modern literature 
that points toward serious psychological and emotional problems that can
inspire the "swingers" lifestyle - and plenty of problems resulting from
it.  As idyllic as it might sound, with so much rationalization and
justification to back it up, it is more likely to cause more problems
than it solves.  It's just not sustainable, emotionally.

Go back and find that book from the 60's, something like "Open Marriage".
Now go find the sequel, written by the same couple twenty years later,
describing the pain, anguish, and dysfunctional behavior that resulted
from their experiences in the lifestyle.

Human nature, much as in other higher organisms, tends to be monogamous.
It's not a moral judgement or a religious issue at all.  It just works 
that way.

Hey, it's hard enough to establish a trusting, respectful, rewarding,
reciprocal, mature connection with just ONE person...

tim

On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, John Klingle wrote:
> >It already is.   That's how I found my love.   Except that for us it
> >wasn't quite a bar.  -more like a vacant park bench. :-)
> Yeah, I haven't noticed anyone coming through here serving drinks ;-)

true, but then, you dont have to tip and call a cab when you wanna get back to
reality.

Have A Shiny Happy Day!
  -weems (via Happy Mail)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 S. M. Weems      -- Geology Major, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
 Geology Intern   -- Alaska Dept. of Geol. & Geophysical Surveys (907)451-5008
 Parachute Rigger -- Alaska Air National Guard, Eielson AFB, Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
The opinions expressed are yours, your employer's, and are current U.S. policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
fssmw3@aurora.alaska.edu || http://icecube.acf-lab.alaska.edu/~fssmw3

< You've got half an answer:  it's not enough to see that the church
imposed monogomy; you have ask why there were so many polygamous
marriages in the first place. >

Because it is just more fun ?  :-)  Perhaps it even makes more sense, financially ? (It costs less to buy 
anything if 10 people team up ? Or that 8 - 10 breadwinners in a family insure a higher financial safety 
for the offsprings than only 2 ? )

< Remember:  just because it was done in the past doesn't make it right. >

Just because it (monogamy) is done now, it doesn't make it right any more either...it can be as well just 
a passing flavor or the millenium, how can you tell ?  Because the Church says ? Ho ho ho. I wouldn't 
trust them with a chocolate cake, let alone my sex life :-)

< In today's society with all the STD's floating around, [polygamy] makes even less sense. >

Basketball makes even less sense, and you can't even imagine how popular it is  :-)
The only way to keep all STDs away from you  is to live your life behind a closed door.
While my houseplants don't complain, I think I would find that a _leeetle_ boring.

< Lastly, your argument is specious:  just because *you* say you aren't a pervert doesn't mean you 
*aren't* a pervert.  >

If calling me a pervert makes you happy, call me a pervert.  Anything to make you happy  Just don't ask 
for money, I'm sentimentally too attached to it...   :-)
( Why did I have a pressentiment that if someone flames me, it will be another male ? )

George

Okay! May be polygamy makes sense. Better yet! Polygamy may be the answer 
for the next millenium. Why...?
Because, most people who are pro-monogamy are the creators of multitude 
of hungry mouths. The polygamists (you won't find it in a dict.) will not
do that (barring few exceptional cases like Idi Amin). Or just imagine,
an army of children marching through malls, movie-theatres, and restaurants.

In article <4l4hvf$eid@nuhou.aloha.net>, George <smooth@aloha.net> writes:
|> < You've got half an answer:  it's not enough to see that the church
|> imposed monogomy; you have ask why there were so many polygamous
|> marriages in the first place. >
|> 
|> Because it is just more fun ?  :-)  Perhaps it even makes more sense, financially ? (It costs less to buy 
|> anything if 10 people team up ? Or that 8 - 10 breadwinners in a family insure a higher financial safety 
|> for the offsprings than only 2 ? )
|> 
|> < Remember:  just because it was done in the past doesn't make it right. >
|> 
|> Just because it (monogamy) is done now, it doesn't make it right any more either...it can be as well just 
|> a passing flavor or the millenium, how can you tell ?  Because the Church says ? Ho ho ho. I wouldn't 
|> trust them with a chocolate cake, let alone my sex life :-)
|> 
|> < In today's society with all the STD's floating around, [polygamy] makes even less sense. >
|> 
|> Basketball makes even less sense, and you can't even imagine how popular it is  :-)
|> The only way to keep all STDs away from you  is to live your life behind a closed door.
|> While my houseplants don't complain, I think I would find that a _leeetle_ boring.
|> 
|> < Lastly, your argument is specious:  just because *you* say you aren't a pervert doesn't mean you 
|> *aren't* a pervert.  >
|> 
|> If calling me a pervert makes you happy, call me a pervert.  Anything to make you happy  Just don't ask 
|> for money, I'm sentimentally too attached to it...   :-)
|> ( Why did I have a pressentiment that if someone flames me, it will be another male ? )
|> 
|> George
|> 
|> 

In article <4l4hvf$eid@nuhou.aloha.net>, George  <smooth@aloha.net> wrote:
>< You've got half an answer:  it's not enough to see that the church
>imposed monogomy; you have ask why there were so many polygamous
>marriages in the first place. >
>
>Because it is just more fun ?  :-)  Perhaps it even makes more sense, financially ? (It costs less to buy 
>anything if 10 people team up ? Or that 8 - 10 breadwinners in a family insure a higher financial safety 
>for the offsprings than only 2 ? )

Have you done any research about the percentage of polygamous
relationships that are stable?

>< Remember:  just because it was done in the past doesn't make it right. >
>
>Just because it (monogamy) is done now, it doesn't make it right any more either...it can be as well just 
>a passing flavor or the millenium, how can you tell ?  Because the Church says ? Ho ho ho. I wouldn't 
>trust them with a chocolate cake, let alone my sex life :-)

Did I say anything about the church?  No, you did.  I suggest you do
more research before just flinging your gonads to the world at large.
The world at large might not want them.  What I'm saying is your
research into the topic is incomplete.  All you've said so far is
that the church in the past got rid of all those polygamous
relationships and that you want to be polygamous.  As a thinking
person, it seems pretty amazing that you're going to change your lifestyle
based on one piece of information.

>
>< In today's society with all the STD's floating around, [polygamy] makes even less sense. >
>
>Basketball makes even less sense, and you can't even imagine how popular it is  :-)
>The only way to keep all STDs away from you  is to live your life behind a closed door.
>While my houseplants don't complain, I think I would find that a _leeetle_ boring.

Uh, how exactly is basketball related to this topic?

>
>< Lastly, your argument is specious:  just because *you* say you aren't a pervert doesn't mean you 
>*aren't* a pervert.  >
>
>If calling me a pervert makes you happy, call me a pervert.  Anything to make you happy  Just don't ask 
>for money, I'm sentimentally too attached to it...   :-)
>( Why did I have a pressentiment that if someone flames me, it will be another male ? )

Uh, did I actually *say* you were a pervert?  No.  I said perversion
is defined by local rules.  Yeesh.

Following your train of thought is very much like following
a trail of mush that people have been walking on for several
days, and it's about as useful.

			Robert
-- 
--------------------------
Robert Becker                                      robertb@world.std.com
Erstwhile bicyclist, avid father, longtime breather

Robert Becker <robertb@world.std.com> wrote:
>Have you done any research about the percentage of polygamous
>relationships that are stable?

Mind you I'm not advocating polygamy; I just had to comment: How many
monogamous relationships have you been known to be stable?  Most Westerners
have had an plethora of serially monogamous relationships.  Plus our
divorce rate runs at about 50%.

  - John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  __))    "Glass ceilings?  Name ANY ex-goat farmer who's made management!"
 /_ oo  
  (_ \   Holliston Poor Farm                                   - John Cooley
%//  \"  Holliston, MA 01746-6222           part time Sheep & ex-Goat Farmer
%%%  $   jcooley@world.std.com       full time contract ASIC & FPGA Designer

< None of this means that what you find right for you is wrong, nor that
what I find right for me is wrong. However, you are selecting history to
justify your desires. >

Not yet... it was the other poster.
It would be rather difficult to use historical examples when all written material remains from ... who?... 
the Church. Of course they adjusted reality a "little" to their liking. Here's an interesting related 
paragraph from the "History of Sex" book, I mentioned before, about King Arthur

"... One of the things which has done much to build up in our minds a false and idealized conception 
of the Middle Ages is the representation of King Arthur and his knights as paragons of chaste and 
gentlemanly behaviour. This has been done primarily by the Christian authorities, who rewrote the old 
British folk tales as as to bring them in line with the approved morality of the Middle Ages, though 
the process was carried further by the romantics of hte eighteenth cewntury and by Victorian 
sentimentalism. The facts arew very different. Gildas, as as Christian historian, is no doubt somewhat 
biased, but he describes the knights as "sanguinary, boastful, murderous, addicted to vice, adulterous 
and enemies of God", adding "Although they keep a large number of wives, they are fornicators and 
adulterers."  The morals of the ladies are no stricter. At King Arthur's court, when a logic mantle is 
produced which can only be worn by a chaste woman, none of the ladies present is able to wear it.
   When we examine these stories in their original form, we begin to see, not immorality as such, but 
a completely different system of sexual morality at odds with the Christian one: a system in which 
women were free to take lovers, both before and after marriage, and in which men were free to 
seduce all women of lower rank, while they might hope to win the favours of women of higher rank if 
they were sufficiently valiant... "

So were are spoon-fed here with this Christian monogamy idol since a good millenia;  it would be 
rather hard to untangle how much of our present monogamy is cultural heritage and how much of it 
is a real natural instinct. (I'd say much less than we'd dare to think.) Especially now that you got 
missionaries even in the wildest jungle bushes of the Third World, teaching the "other cultures" on 
our ways and values.

George

George (smooth@aloha.net) wrote:
: Not yet... it was the other poster.
: It would be rather difficult to use historical examples when all written material remains from ... who?... 
: the Church. Of course they adjusted reality a "little" to their liking. Here's an interesting related 

Written material is very unreliable, especially when it has been frequently re-written...

: paragraph from the "History of Sex" book, I mentioned before, about King Arthur
: 
: "... One of the things which has done much to build up in our minds a false and idealized conception 
: of the Middle Ages is the representation of King Arthur and his knights as paragons of chaste and 
: gentlemanly behaviour. This has been done primarily by the Christian authorities, who rewrote the old 
: British folk tales as as to bring them in line with the approved morality of the Middle Ages, though 
: the process was carried further by the romantics of hte eighteenth cewntury and by Victorian 
: sentimentalism. The facts arew very different. Gildas, as as Christian historian, is no doubt somewhat 
: biased, but he describes the knights as "sanguinary, boastful, murderous, addicted to vice, adulterous 
: and enemies of God", adding "Although they keep a large number of wives, they are fornicators and 
: adulterers."  The morals of the ladies are no stricter. At King Arthur's court, when a logic mantle is 
: produced which can only be worn by a chaste woman, none of the ladies present is able to wear it.
:    When we examine these stories in their original form, we begin to see, not immorality as such, but 
: a completely different system of sexual morality at odds with the Christian one: a system in which 
: women were free to take lovers, both before and after marriage, and in which men were free to 
: seduce all women of lower rank, while they might hope to win the favours of women of higher rank if 
: they were sufficiently valiant... "
: 
: So were are spoon-fed here with this Christian monogamy idol since a good millenia;  it would be 
: rather hard to untangle how much of our present monogamy is cultural heritage and how much of it 
: is a real natural instinct. (I'd say much less than we'd dare to think.) Especially now that you got 

Why should humans be any more inclined to monogamy than any other mammal??

: missionaries even in the wildest jungle bushes of the Third World, teaching the "other cultures" on 
: our ways and values.