Adultery and Open relationships...Thoughts?

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Loved your post Olivia.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

.........................This reminds me of a interesting experience. I was at a function where a man got a little too drunk, and started openly flirting with me in front of his wife and all the company. I did my best to politely "not notice" and avoid him without raising a huff. The wife was of course seething with rage towards him, but remained distantly polite to me.

What was interesting: after this nearly every married woman in the room became defensive of her husband talking to me. There was an air of "If that guy will flirt with you, then maybe my husband finds you attractive too."

And though I had done no wrong, I was soon painted a danger. An awkward dinner from which I excused myself at the first given opportunity.

OMG, I can just imagine. Really. It’s mortifying to be in that situation. I’ve lived on my street for over eighteen years. I’m single now and I was for a period of a year or so previously. Except for the old lady next door and a single football player across the street I’m decidedly less popular now than I was when I had a ring on me finger.

The only time my other next-door neighbor has spoken to me in the past couple of years is when she asked if I was getting back with my ex. He owns a contracting company, and he came over one day in one of his company vans to snake my sanitary sewer line. I guess she saw his truck. When I said no we’re just friends. She just said oh and walked back across her yard. Whatever -

It’s funny, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I do despise how often men and women use divorce settlements to abuse each other in their anger and frustration over an ending relationship.

There is no difference between the intensity of love and hate. It is the same emotion. If you loved intensely, you will, in divorce, hate intensely. There does not seem to be any middle ground.

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

There is no difference between the intensity of love and hate. It is the same emotion. If you loved intensely, you will, in divorce, hate intensely. There does not seem to be any middle ground.

From my personal experience I 100% agree with this.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

There is no difference between the intensity of love and hate. It is the same emotion. If you loved intensely, you will, in divorce, hate intensely. There does not seem to be any middle ground.

I think that the opposite of love is indifference, because it certainly isn’t hate. Hate is a destructive, angry secondary emotion that has its root in love (or a quasi love and the hater isn’t emotionally advanced to understand the difference between love and extreme need or obsession). I would say betrayal, fear, contempt or combinations of them are usually the blending emotions that produce the destructive emotion of hate.

If you’ve ever been indifferent to an ex-lover, you’ll know for a fact that you don’t love them anymore. I wasn't overly fond of my ex when we divorced, but as a favor to myself and my child, I didn't give in the destructive nature of hate. It's a zero sum game.

[Capt. Lincoln F. Stern]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Thanks



OMG, I can just imagine. Really. It’s mortifying to be in that situation. I’ve lived on my street for over eighteen years. I’m single now and I was for a period of a year or so previously. Except for the old lady next door and a single football player across the street I’m decidedly less popular now than I was when I had a ring on me finger.

The only time my other next-door neighbor has spoken to me in the past couple of years is when she asked if I was getting back with my ex. He owns a contracting company, and he came over one day in one of his company vans to snake my sanitary sewer line. I guess she saw his truck. When I said no we’re just friends. She just said oh and walked back across her yard. Whatever -

It’s funny, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Why does that sound kinky?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I’m single now and I was for a period of a year or so previously. Except for the old lady next door and a single football player across the street I’m decidedly less popular now than I was when I had a ring on me finger.

Definite double standard on this one; as a single male I have no such issues. I seem to be useful to fill out a dinner party, but not seen as a threat.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

This reminds me of a interesting experience. I was at a function where a man got a little too drunk, and started openly flirting with me in front of his wife and all the company. I did my best to politely "not notice" and avoid him without raising a huff. The wife was of course seething with rage towards him, but remained distantly polite to me.

What was interesting: after this nearly every married woman in the room became defensive of her husband talking to me. There was an air of "If that guy will flirt with you, then maybe my husband finds you attractive too."

And though I had done no wrong, I was soon painted a danger. An awkward dinner from which I excused myself at the first given opportunity.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Definite double standard on this one; as a single male I have no such issues. I seem to be useful to fill out a dinner party, but not seen as a threat.

Maybe you just don't look like Lauren.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Maybe you just don't look like Lauren.

Or Olivia

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

There is no difference between the intensity of love and hate. It is the same emotion. If you loved intensely, you will, in divorce, hate intensely. There does not seem to be any middle ground.

True

[guest042111]

I do not like to over analyze why me and my husband have an open relationship. It is simple for me: honesty and being upfront with what you want. I want to fuck other people and so does he. I do not need a blow-by-blow psychoanalytic report about why.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I think that the opposite of love is indifference, because it certainly isn’t hate. Hate is a destructive, angry secondary emotion that has its root in love (or a quasi love and the hater isn’t emotionally advanced to understand the difference between love and extreme need or obsession). I would say betrayal, fear, contempt or combinations of them are usually the blending emotions that produce the destructive emotion of hate.

If you’ve ever been indifferent to an ex-lover, you’ll know for a fact that you don’t love them anymore. I wasn't overly fond of my ex when we divorced, but as a favor to myself and my child, I didn't give in the destructive nature of hate. It's a zero sum game.

i disagree that the opposite of love is indifference, but i do agree that the opposite of love is not hate. Hate might be fueled by love or betrayed love, but i have loved people who i never hated. Then i have hated people who i never loved. Then i have hated people who i did love. But the love /hate factor was always independent from each other. Being indifferent is a form and state of ZEN and therefor not emotionally - laden. Hate and Love are. Therefor i disagree taht a state of non-emotion can be the opposite state of states of emotions. Its too easy.
Indifference would then be the opposite of whatever form of emotion, that said.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by SarahAndFriends

I do not like to over analyze why me and my husband have an open relationship. It is simple for me: honesty and being upfront with what you want. I want to fuck other people and so does he. I do not need a blow-by-blow psychoanalytic report about why.

true!! i think as long as mentalities do not crash and you happen not to fall for people outside your way of life that is not necessary. I do analyze myself (and others) because i simply do not want to make the same mistakes twice. There are myriads of people always eating the same Sh*t in numerous dosages. I only need ONE married guy and i only need ONE mormon. Rest assured i am dating two polyamorous people now. Thankfully. Overanalyzingly thankfully.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Spirit13

Why does that sound kinky?

He's kinda a kinky guy lol

[Capt. Lincoln F. Stern]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

He's kinda a kinky guy lol

Definately a different way of putting some act of intimacy on the menu that will make you think what it is.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

There have been interesting sociological and anthropological studies and papers written suggesting that divorce has gone up as life expectancy has gone up. Marriage till death do you part, when you are socially and economically co-dependent and probably going to die before you ever see 60 is much easier.

I think men and women are too often angry and ashamed when they cannot make a relationship last a lifetime. Decades pass, and people change - sometimes they grow together, sometimes they grow apart. It is not always a matter of failure or someone being a bad person, just change. Punishing yourself for not having a happy relationship that lasted a life time is like punishing yourself every time your lottery ticket is a loosing one. There are very few marriages that soldier on, strong, happy and bonded, till one takes their last breath.

I do despise how often men and women use divorce settlements to abuse each other in their anger and frustration over an ending relationship.


Indeed, before humans became consciously aware that the act of sex created children, marriage was not so important. Upon that realization, we have the institution of marriage form in order to guard the inheritance of the male - ensuring it continues onto this blood line. Often enough noblemen would only guard their wives until the first born male, and then afterwards they would both have their affairs and lead very separate lives.

Hi Lauren,
I agree with all you stated! Then further comes the influence !! that cannot be underestimated as well on monogamy - the catholic church and its morals. Previously, even assured that the offspring was "of the right blood" a man was allowed (ancient rome, ancient greek and many other cultures of patriarchy) to marry more women. Most of them have the wife of the right blood with children of the right blood and then two more wives (one was usually the housekeeper ) anfd the other one some mistress whose children they fathered as well. Which was not a problem, since the men took care of all of them financially in some way or the other. Women had to be monogamous (at least the rightful ones with the right bloodline) so that it could be assured that the gods were not angry - It was believed that when the bllodline got betrayed you angered the gods and was prepared for a bad afterlife.

So catholic monogamy assured that the finances did not go into many numerous wives and many numerous offsprings but the people invested their money in the church to be at good stand.
Plus for feministic purposes it was statet that even the catholic church was a first base for feminism because it did not allow to screw men around, which invented the capitalistic idea of a split household in which women had as much to say as men.

I still do think that people marry for financial reasons most of the time. Marriage out of love is a myth that did not exist before the 20th century. Usually marriage and love was never in the same areas - as Lauren pointed out with the royals (that said - the burgeouise was LONG LONG time not even ALLOWED to marry!!! so marriage was a privilege !!! not available for everyone ) .
A marriage serves to make peace after war to overcome country boundaries. Interestingly enough one relict is the immigration possibility when you marry. Its not enough to have a partner you love from out the state, but when oyu marry you have immigration rights. That is interesting. Its also interesting that these rights do not apply to same-sex couples, only heteros. Another interesting phenomena of heteronormativity. That said, IF marriage was about love in the first place (which it isn`t, its about raising children and putting them in a safe enviroment) no one would have a problem with gay marriages in the first place, right?

But its the idea of the core family and the idea to procreate that fuels marriages. (Hell in mormon religion people have to marry in order to have sex and that sex is to get as many children as possible). I don`t think - really - that peoople with 18 are capable of making a decision of whether they love someone enought to spend the rest of their lives together. I think - personally - people should not marry unless they are really really very good together and it has shown for a long time. Interestingly enough - the first notions in literature of an emotion like LOVE in history have been taken by notations of same-sex love. That was when the pure being together for procrastination was transcended and another reason for being together came into play (verbally and in literature)

More about that in an interesting book by a very openminded judge (i think) Richard A. Posner /Sex and Reason
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Reason-Hon...5911538&sr=8-1