Keeping marriages alive with affairs, asexuality, polyamory and living apart

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Leah Ireland

The definition of marriage includes TWO PEOPLE. Anything else is a travesty and way away from real love. Yeah, call me old-fashioned. (And no, a proclivity for Prada or latinos with big boobs or Asians with beautiful eyes so don't count.)

Marriage is marriage. Between two people. You think I'm married? Obviously not.

Anyone in this hobby should know WALDT. If monogamy is what makes you happy - Great. If you are happy in another arrangement that is fine also. I just do not like statements that are so absolute in the belief that everyone must conform to it or they are wrong.

[juicybud]

For me, I hobby to fill a need that my wife does not. While I love her dearly, she is gotten more conservative in regards to sex. We have talked about it but she is firm in her stance. I keep my hobbying to myself and never let it affect my family life.
This does not mean I love her any less but I guess I am selfish wanting to fill my needs though. I would be with her even if I did not hobby but less happy in the sexuality part. To each their own.

[Backformore]

Juicybud, I couldn't agree with you more. I too have a wife that I love dearly, and despite discussions on the matter and trying various solutions, she is simply unable / unwilling to fulfill my desires. She added quite a bit of weight (+/- 100lbs) during pregnancy about 6 years ago and has not taken any initiative to take it off. Do I still love her? Yes. Am I physically attracted to her? Not nearly as much. I don't want an affair. I have an emotionally and mentally fulfilling marriage. I just want to be physically attracted to the one I'm having sex with.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Couldn't have been much. Fromm never fucked anyone but his valet.

haha, no doubt. The only book worth reading is one that can teach ya how to snap your fingers like the " Fonz" and two hotties are standing at your side. All the rest are basically written by con artists instead of pickup artists.

[Leah Ireland]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Yes Skyler. there are different types of "Love" but regardless of the type of relationship or type of love. Most of us have one common dilema, and that is, we really don't know how to love. Knowing how to Love one another and how to be loved is very important. To many people throw the word "Love" arouind like rag. Love, although it maybe an emotion it's also a choice. Marriages fail way to often because the choice to love another was not taken quite so seriously and the feelings love brings wax and wane.

Well said! I feel you both have to mean what you say - so how can you not grow?

[Leah Ireland]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Couldn't have been much. Fromm never fucked anyone but his valet.

Ha ha, you're such a bitch!

[Leah Ireland]

Originally Posted by Laz

Anyone in this hobby should know WALDT. If monogamy is what makes you happy - Great. If you are happy in another arrangement that is fine also. I just do not like statements that are so absolute in the belief that everyone must conform to it or they are wrong.

Interesting, you speak in acronyms - I tend not to know them, particularly in this world. They tend to be so reductive and demeaning. You think any great writers ever used acronyms? Absolutely not, and yes they repeated certain words many times.

Perhaps you may think the allusion to great writers is irrelevant - no.

Our lives are always great creations, whether we are recognised as great writers or not. And our lives do not consist of acronyms. Unless you're some sorry insensitive soul.

Sure, it's your choice.

The truth is absolute, always, it doesn't change with fashion or time or whatever. Marriage is and always will be, in it's highest level, a union of two.

The fact that many people's marriages are anything but or they prefer polygamy or whatever doesn't detract from the fact that ultimately people aspire to the unions that are highest of all.

What are the highest unions?

1. With God. Or whatever your word for God - great spirit, energy, whatever.

2. With oneself.

3. With another.

4. Anything else is a distillation of the above and therefore not so desirable.

[69er]

Originally Posted by Leah Ireland

The definition of marriage includes TWO PEOPLE. Anything else is a travesty and way away from real love. Yeah, call me old-fashioned. (And no, a proclivity for Prada or latinos with big boobs or Asians with beautiful eyes so don't count.)

Marriage is marriage. Between two people. You think I'm married? Obviously not.

I find this attitude interesting, especially in this community.

I'd like to hear your answer on some of the following:

If "marriage inclues TWO PEOPLE.", can those people be of the same sex? (If you answer yes, can you still consider yourself "old-fashioned"?)

Your comment seems to indicate that you believe "real love" must include marriage, is that your position?

Your comment also seems to indicate that "real love" can only ever happen between two people... are you saying that someone cannot feel "real love" for more than one person?

If you view "real love" as being something that should be the goal of all marriages to sustain such a state (That would be "old-fashioned", I am sort of guessing between the lines, tell me if I'm wrong.), then how do you justify that an escort in not a societal problem, and why shouldn't they be branded with a scarlet letter? (We do realize the majority of men using an escorts services are married.) Don't escorts work to break the bonds if the view is that love is the basis for marriage and must be between two people?

[Leah Ireland]

Originally Posted by 69er

I find this attitude interesting, especially in this community.

I'd like to hear your answer on some of the following:

If "marriage includes TWO PEOPLE.", can those people be of the same sex? (If you answer yes, can you still consider yourself "old-fashioned"?)

Your comment seems to indicate that you believe "real love" must include marriage, is that your position?

Your comment also seems to indicate that "real love" can only ever happen between two people... are you saying that someone cannot feel "real love" for more than one person?

If you view "real love" as being something that should be the goal of all marriages to sustain such a state (That would be "old-fashioned", I am sort of guessing between the lines, tell me if I'm wrong.), then how do you justify that an escort in not a societal problem, and why shouldn't they be branded with a scarlet letter? (We do realize the majority of men using an escorts services are married.) Don't escorts work to break the bonds if the view is that love is the basis for marriage and must be between two people?

Thanks for asking 69er!

Actually I think a lot of escorts are some of the most romantic people you can meet. We believe in love and haven't sold ourselves for the lucrative marriages we could make. Intellectually I'm against this, obviously elsewise I'm all there.

Re. same sex marriages I totally believe in them. Love is what counts.

Re. escorts being branded with a scarlet letter - are you kidding?

If someone cheats on their marriage then as far as I'm concerned they're not truly married. I have never talked anyone into cheating on their spouse. It has always been the other way around - are you surprised??? I would think that that's the norm with women.

In fact I've had situations with good clients where I've advised them what to do for the sake of their marriage and they've gone much more happily back to their wives.

If I wanted them for marriage I would hardly have been so generous. But I think relationships are a spiritual matter, somehow I don't feel I lose out even if I lose a bit financially in the short term.

Also I don't feel true love has to end in marriage. Personally, I think when I find that that that's what I'd want.

Finally - escorts are not a societal problem. Dead-beat dads and others who don't believe in the sanctity of human relations are.

[Darth]

Leah, This is an interesting topic and I do appreciate your point of view! However, I find some of your statements to be slightly incomplete. In the Traditions of Western Civilization (roughly Golden Crescent, through Egypt, Greece, Roman, Middle Ages, through modern times) a form of marriage between a man and a woman and GENERALLY monogamous is the dominant form. For each era, there were different reasons for the marriage, from property rights, to proper lineage to the nuclear family to even political alliance. The idea of romantic love in a marriage is actually a thoroughly modern concept. The part I find incomplete is that THROUGHOUT history, there are exceptions, in particular exceptions to strict monogamy. For instance, Spartan Men would often share wives, if one was barren. In Mesopotamian culture, there was a tradition that married women had to go to the temple of Aphrodite and sleep with a stranger at least once during the marriage. And then you have the early Mormons and the widespread practice of Polygamy. The point is, that to be fully complete, realize that your ideas of marriage have been shaped by a long line of western traditions, and there are a lot of people, and rightfully so (and have throughout history), that adhere to different customs than the dominant culture (yours), and that makes them no less right about their ideas of marriage and monogamy.

[Roothead]

some of the perspective shared herein are pretty "absolute", which is kind of ironic in that in this country, there is pretty much a 50% divorce rate - so one of the the 'highest" unions is pretty much hit-or-miss....? from a personal perspective, my SO and I share a belief of trust and acceptance that we derive benefits and value from our marriage and from our ability to sample / address our vices, sometimes apart and sometimes together... this approach been working for us for almost 20 yrs, so, IMHO, our union is of the lucky ones to be at the "highest" level....

[Leah Ireland]

Originally Posted by Darth

Leah, This is an interesting topic and I do appreciate your point of view! However, I find some of your statements to be slightly incomplete. In the Traditions of Western Civilization (roughly Golden Crescent, through Egypt, Greece, Roman, Middle Ages, through modern times) a form of marriage between a man and a woman and GENERALLY monogamous is the dominant form. For each era, there were different reasons for the marriage, from property rights, to proper lineage to the nuclear family to even political alliance. The idea of romantic love in a marriage is actually a thoroughly modern concept. The part I find incomplete is that THROUGHOUT history, there are exceptions, in particular exceptions to strict monogamy. For instance, Spartan Men would often share wives, if one was barren. In Mesopotamian culture, there was a tradition that married women had to go to the temple of Aphrodite and sleep with a stranger at least once during the marriage. And then you have the early Mormons and the widespread practice of Polygamy. The point is, that to be fully complete, realize that your ideas of marriage have been shaped by a long line of western traditions, and there are a lot of people, and rightfully so (and have throughout history), that adhere to different customs than the dominant culture (yours), and that makes them no less right about their ideas of marriage and monogamy.

Hi Darth, thank you. You obviously know a lot more about historical notions and practices of marriage than I and many others do.

We always believe what we choose to believe, and I totally believe in a very restricted field of intercourse for marriage. As previously outlined.

One can argue that whatever one believes about marriage to be true - well, yes. But the more you dilute something the weaker it gets; duh.

The mere fact that men have shared wives throughout history is not an argument against marriage in its highest forms, it merely means the men weren't getting it. And so naturally the women weren't either.

[Leah Ireland]

Originally Posted by Roothead

some of the perspective shared herein are pretty "absolute", which is kind of ironic in that in this country, there is pretty much a 50% divorce rate - so one of the the 'highest" unions is pretty much hit-or-miss....? from a personal perspective, my SO and I share a belief of trust and acceptance that we derive benefits and value from our marriage and from our ability to sample / address our vices, sometimes apart and sometimes together... this approach been working for us for almost 20 yrs, so, IMHO, our union is of the lucky ones to be at the "highest" level....

It can't possibly be so strong if you dilute it.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Laz

I just do not like statements that are so absolute in the belief that everyone must conform to it or they are wrong.

I absolutely agree. Plus, I do believe in some form of authenticity and truth in private relationships. I think keeping up lies or telltales is an act of comformism and dogmatism. Although I can understand, that at some point it might be almost (or seem like it) impossible to change things or alter them without doing serious damage to the relationships.

But as Leonard Cohen put it "There is a crack, a crack in everything - That is where the light comes in"

Sociologica studies and behavioour have proven all too often that marriage don`t divorce over affairs, at best they change and the light cracks different possibilities open.

And I do completely agree with Skylar Cruz post, it takes times of crisis to reflect, and change and rethink boundaries. Without a crisis people are too content. SO the crisis blows things open for change.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Darth

Leah, This is an interesting topic and I do appreciate your point of view! However, I find some of your statements to be slightly incomplete. In the Traditions of Western Civilization (roughly Golden Crescent, through Egypt, Greece, Roman, Middle Ages, through modern times) a form of marriage between a man and a woman and GENERALLY monogamous is the dominant form. For each era, there were different reasons for the marriage, from property rights, to proper lineage to the nuclear family to even political alliance. The idea of romantic love in a marriage is actually a thoroughly modern concept. The part I find incomplete is that THROUGHOUT history, there are exceptions, in particular exceptions to strict monogamy. For instance, Spartan Men would often share wives, if one was barren. In Mesopotamian culture, there was a tradition that married women had to go to the temple of Aphrodite and sleep with a stranger at least once during the marriage. And then you have the early Mormons and the widespread practice of Polygamy. The point is, that to be fully complete, realize that your ideas of marriage have been shaped by a long line of western traditions, and there are a lot of people, and rightfully so (and have throughout history), that adhere to different customs than the dominant culture (yours), and that makes them no less right about their ideas of marriage and monogamy.

exactly, I agree

the idea of monogamy includes mono and gamos (which means that you make sure that the offspring is yours) and that yoou are legally married to only one "right" person (most often of good heritage, etc.

In roman times there were even several marriage types (three of them) as the man was allowed to marry his wife, where he had the offsprings with and shared the money, to have sex (and marry) his housekeeper, and have lovers (most often sacred prostitutes) and also maintain some kind of marriage with, I don`t recall what names these kind of marriages had, maybe some of you know... but there were special names for it.

Some historic researchers found that monogamy was a sect implemented by the offspring of early catholicism and also a way of controlling the money flow (more marriages, more children to take care of) towards the church (to make sure the rightful offsprings were protected and such, when they did not know how babies were made, it was important to keep the line of heritage and ancestors in the "right blood" line, and it was seen bad and as a curse if the offspring was not yours).

The idea of combining monogamy with exclusive love and exclusive sex is a recent one , and has failed and will continue to fail. There is a lot of hypocrisy surrounding it, as we all know.

Also, Leah, I want to add to what thoughts you proposed for discussion: Marriage has never been without secret lovers or institutionaliozed prostitutes or escorts. in fact, prostitutes were allowed in many cultures as the "lesser evil" to divorce or splitting up. There is a reason why this is the "oldest profession". Every conservative society needs a catalyzator, and instead of allowing lovers or questioning monogamy (which would be mindboggling ) there have been oasis of little freedom created on a scale of 1 to 50 diversion rate from the ideal of monogamy. So , if you fuck a prostitute it better than to have an official lover, and its more temporary, and less threatening. You can "sidestep" if yu need, but the ideal of mono is still protected. Statistics also show that the most conservative countries have the highest "use" of prostitutes.

the idea of a marriage is to be stable and long term and drama free. There have been a lot of puritan ideas on how to keep it that way. For example badmouthing passion over rationality.
So, since you need passion and excitement, that was kept for the casual encounters. A marriage had to stay trouble free, and free from too much emotional outbursts and variables of uncontrolled features.

We escorts are in one way there to "sanitize" marriages. If that is bad or good , is a personal and moral choice. But a realistical choice would be to "see" things. I don`t think its bad to keep a marriage going by using escorts as catalysator. But there has to be something for women, too. And most often marriages are pretty good like that.