D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
scorcho said:
BOGGLE.
Married 3 Years... It Is Tough Not To Kiss Other Women
- Thread starter BojTrek
- Start date
- Status
BOGGLE.
Fresh Prince
Banned
I hope you're being sarcastic and stupid.scorcho said:
keeblerdrow
Member
Are you cocky to your wife? Are you funny?
Fresh Prince
Banned
That is just f*cked.scorcho said:
BigGreenMat
Member
Hey, if a guy has to live by that vow and give her money after divorce and for the kids then damnit a guy should be allowed some liberties too!!!
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
I sure was hoping the writer of this thread was female...
Look, man....I don't know your situation, but as a married man to another married man (next March will be four years of marriage, this January we'll have been together for ten) I have to ask you if you are keeping an open line of communication with your woman. Does she know you want more sex? Did you tell her about your encounter, and what it represents to you? Have you two talked about why you are feeling the way you do?
It's not easy to do, but opening up those lines of communication is the most important thing you can do to keep your marriage stable. If you have trouble doing that yourself, I recommend counselling. A councellor can help you guys get out what you need to say to each other.
The worst thing you can do is keep your mouth shut and suffer.
It's not easy to do, but opening up those lines of communication is the most important thing you can do to keep your marriage stable. If you have trouble doing that yourself, I recommend counselling. A councellor can help you guys get out what you need to say to each other.
The worst thing you can do is keep your mouth shut and suffer.
Great Wasabi Man
Member
My bi GF (of 6 years) and I have a semi-open relationship, we can both go out and get with girls (bo guys for her, what she said) unfortunatly I look like a hairy sherk so no worries for her :/
CaptainABAB
Member
Great Wasabi Man said:
Looks like she got the better end of that "agreement".
A friend of mine told me once, "but you're married, you can get laid whenever you want." We had a good laugh about that after I explained the reality of marriage to him.
The biggest problem with marriage is high expectations. Many people go into it thinking their lives will change, that they will become new people. That just doesn't happen, and it's disappointing. I was an asshole before I got married, and three years later I'm still an asshole. And now I'm fat, too. Happy anniversary, honey!
The biggest problem with marriage is high expectations. Many people go into it thinking their lives will change, that they will become new people. That just doesn't happen, and it's disappointing. I was an asshole before I got married, and three years later I'm still an asshole. And now I'm fat, too. Happy anniversary, honey!
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Married people do avergae more sex than single people. I dont have more details about the statistic, however. I don't know if its adjusted for age group, or what. I know that I am getting it.
I also disagree with Ned pretty heartily. Whether monogomy is socially trained into us or not, it's roots are very deep and not to be ignored. I'm not at all religious on the subect of marriage but I am a believer in committed relationships.
I also disagree with Ned pretty heartily. Whether monogomy is socially trained into us or not, it's roots are very deep and not to be ignored. I'm not at all religious on the subect of marriage but I am a believer in committed relationships.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
kumanoki said:
I agree with this post.
#1 upsetting thing on this thread: Number of people whose beliefs about marriage ignore this fact, and are setting themselves up for unsatisfying relationships because "that's just the way it is"
#2 upsetting thing: BojTrek responding only to people offering sympathy, not those offering advice.
Ned Flanders
Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
I mean I'm not saying you can't be monogomous for periods or that it's wrong to be committed to someone, I just think that these notions of "forever" are assanine, as is the mutual guilt imposed by committed parties when one of them feels attracted to someone else. I just think if we approached relationships with a more rational understanding and acceptance of our nature that we'd have far fewer 6 month marriages and crimes of jealousy. But people are either so irrational about their ability to live with only one partner for life, or they are so worried about the stigma associated with saying "I want you, but I want other people too", that you end up with marriages that fail over half the time.
When I'm "with someone", which is extremely rare, I'm completely committed. But it's always with the understanding that trust is paramount, both ways. I tell them that if I have feelings for someone else or that I'd rather not be committed for fear of cheating, then I will tell them before I'll go behind their back. And I expect the same of them. The minute I find that they cheated, then I'm done with them, because trust for me is irreperable. To hold somebody to the standard that they should never want someone else is silly (thus my beef with marriage and the guilt stigmas associated with it), but I don't think holding them in obligation to inform you of their feelings is not. That's how I approach committment.
Ned Flanders said:
You're a joke character today right? The guilt stigma associate with marriage?
How's this for an analogy.... I want more money... society teaches me it's wrong to steal... but I know I can easily get more money by running around stealing it. Which is right?
Let's back up a bit.
The only irrational statements I've seen in this thread so far are the ones coming from you.
The long and short of it is that not EVERYONE is the marrying type. Some people are perfectly fine with finding one mate, settling down and enjoying an entire life together.
One of the PROBLEMs is that it's too easy to get married, and too many folks are doing it without REALLY getting to know the person they are marrying.
People seem to have forgotten that marriage is work. You don't get married and then all of the sudden have to stop putting effort in to the relationship. Both sides each day have to communicate, work together, etc. to make the relationship work. I've always been of the mind that to REALLY get to know someone these days? You have to live with them. Only IMO when you deal with them every day... when they wake up... when they go to sleep, etc.. can you see all the faces of the person... good, bad, happy, sad, cranky, etc.... those things give you a much better ability to say... ok do I love this person enough that I can put up with their crap for the rest of my life?
Cause that's part of what any long-term relationship is putting up with the other persons crap, because the good parts outweigh the bad.
Ok that's one piece... here's another. What's your feelings on children Ned? Do you feel that non-marrying people, people like you who know they won't stay together should or should not have children? If you DO feel they should have children, what type of burden do you think that places on the child? Eh my dad and mom bumped around for a few years, but he saw somebody else he liked better so he rolled out?
I'm glad you have you own opinion, but I tell ya need.. with you tossing around the fact that you think people who are in marriages are silly.... me and you would have issues face to face.
suaveric said:
Link? It's fun with #'s time again!
EDIT:
I was kidding with the above BTW I've seen the articles and the research... I simply find it... suspect.
For instance:
http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20030706221939data_trunc_sys.shtml
Love the link right?
Anyway problem? Communication skills. Which I've already pointed out are the key element in any long term relationship.
Let me briefly add that most reports show a 10% difference... regardless of the # of divorces for those who didn't live together, the # for those that did is usually 10% higher... one of the few conclusions these reports draw is that folks who have lived together have more of a mentality that it's easier to just leave when something doesn't work out and that mentality carries along in to the marriage.
But it's so hard to quantify a nation of people like that because there are so many other factors... even a CNN article points out things like race, wealth, even where you live are all factors.
But it's so hard to quantify a nation of people like that because there are so many other factors... even a CNN article points out things like race, wealth, even where you live are all factors.
I think one way to explain how they got those living together/divorced numbers is this- people who think its OK to live together before marrige obviously aren't as old fashioned in their views, therefor they probably look at divorce in the same modern way, i.e., its not that big of a deal.
My friend just informed me yesterday that he's getting married to his girlfriend. Who lives in B.C. (We live in Ontario). Whom he met 8 months ago when he was there for 2 weeks visiting his brother, and as far as I know that's the only time they've seen each other. He's moving out to B.C. in April when he's done school, and the marriage is in September. He's 20, btw.
Winged Creature
Member
Boogie said:
20 is way to young to get married
Winged Creature
Member
im not saying its too young as you shouldnt do it, I just feel ur missing out on a lot of life and experince and it would be wiser to get married when ur more established, thats all
Winged Creature
Member
this is my personal opinion thats all, im not preaching to anyone, just stating my opinon
For the first three years, when you're in "love" there's a chemical released that makes you addicted and obsessed. Then after the three years if you're still together it should be all good.
I'm not sure if that's true but I read it in a Bjork interview when she was talking about the song "Hyperballad" (awesome)
I'm not sure if that's true but I read it in a Bjork interview when she was talking about the song "Hyperballad" (awesome)
Ned Flanders
Banned
DarienA said:
Marriage, and the concept of an everlasting union demonizes the desire for others. Lusting after or fantasizing about other people outside of the marriage is viewed as sinful and amoral. I believe (and its your right to believe otherwise) that it's perfectly natural to desire more than one person and that stable relationships are more likely to develop from marriages that choose to address this openly. The problem is that the institution itself perpetuates guilt for harboring such feelings, and so in an effort not to soil the blessed union quite often you find people cheating, or engaging in other outlets (porn, fantasy etc) that lead to strained relationships and high divorce rates. I liken it to celibate priests...I feel that celibacy can be a damning thing when you're attempting to supress what should be considered by Christians to be their God-given sexual appetites. Would God prefer you have sex with a consenting woman or that you forcibly molest a child? It's just not a healthy endeavor IMO (which is not to claim that all priests are pedophiles, although I know they all wack it like caged gorillas
).As for your analogy..I don't know if I follow you. Stealing is ethically wrong from my perspective (in addition to being against the law). Maybe if you could elaborate further I could better address your point (sorry I'm tired).
DarienA said:
We agree on both counts. While my statement is rather blanket, I would not pretend to argue that it is impossible to go through a life-long marriage without complete faithfullness, although I would be keen to qualify that many lasting marriages are the result of working through infidelity, lust, and the like. I would also argue that someone able to completely supress such lustful urges is above the norm, and that while it is noble to aspire to such heights, it is not practical as an expecatation. Hoping you can tune a Celica to run with a Ferrari doesn't necessarily make it possible.
DarienA said:
Children? They're whiny, needy, inarticulate...oh..oh wait.
Children are an obligation, of which marriage plays no role. You father or mother a child, you are obliagted to ensure it's well-being regardless of whether you're married or not, and I would agree that a stable relationship/marriage is probably more likely to be a healthier scenario for child rearing than a split household. That said, within the confines of marriage, there are millions of families with divorced/separated parents, parents who travel more than they see their children, children raised by nannies and daycares, etc etc. So simply being married during your child's conception/birth doesn't necessarily ensure them a better upbringing, but I would argue that a committed relationship where the partners are allowed to be open and honest about their desires (and pursue other options if thats how things progress) and happiness would be a far better situation to expose a child to than a bitter/contentious den of unhappiness that remains strictly because of religious vows. How many children with unhappily divorced parents would trade that scenario for parents who were happy, but with other people? It happens all the time with divorced couples who meet knew partners, but when it doesn't it's often because the binds of the marriage extended the mutual misery. All I'm saying is remove the marriage from the equation..and replace it with a committment that is willing to understand that people change and sometimes have other desires. As long as the children are taken care of, the technical status of the relationship is irrelevant.I know it sounds far fetched, and given the current social climate, few people could engage in relationships the way I do. But when you put honesty as paramount, it works in everyone's favor. I view it as, I shouldn't want to be with someone who doesn't want to be with me (and vice versa), as it benefits no one, so I'd rather come to the table in the relationship with the mutual understanding that we both be honest about it if we ever reach that point. Seems rational, no? I think so, and I think it does far less damage than the morally obligated deceit and guilt that marriage often engenders simply as a means of perpetuating something you no longer desire. But to each their own I guess..
Ned Flanders
Banned
Good looks Cubsfan. Cocky + funny is all about stimulating those progesterone levels..
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Ned Flanders said:
You lost me with your premise. I'd correct to say that a lot of people who are in committed relationships demonize the desire for others. That's a mistake, and it's their problem.
Ned Flanders
Banned
Are you saying that within a marriage, it's ok to entertain the notion or pursue relations with others than your spouse Ignatz? It's viewed as sinful and covetous. A 'divine union' by definition doesn't leave the backdoor open for infidelity. It's the nature of the beast.
Even before marriage, desire for others is considered sinful, as per doctrine's denouncing pre-marital sex. I CAN'T WANT TO FUCK ANYBODY!!! EVER!! GODDAMNFUCKERLOO!!
..ahem. Anyway, this obviously boils down to deeper philosophy with me, more generally pertaining to religion, and more specifically pertaining to religious conceptions of god. I don't understand why, if I am a creature of god, he would design me to procreate, program my eyes to train on beautiful symmetrical women with shapely birthing hips and baby-feeding mammaries, allow my penis to be stimulated through even incedental contact, pump my flesh full of raging hormones, and then tell me NOT TO LUST, NOT TO MASTURBATE, NOT TO FUCK WOMEN OUT OF WEDLOCK, AND DEFINITELY NOT TO FUCK MORE THAN ONE OF THEM. What kind of sick bastard would set such things at odds and torture his creations so? So if I don't masturbate, and don't consciously have lustful thoughts, are NOCTURNAL EMISSIONS SINFUL? Can I get sent to hell for things that occur during R-E-M sleep?
Anway..speaking of sleep...I obviously need some. Among other things. Oh yeah. SOME PUSSY W00T CAN'T WAIT TO GET MY OUT OF WEDLOCK HORNYCAKE FUCK-ON PATNA OOH WEE!!
MARRIAGE = FO BUSTAZ!!
j/k
Goodnight now
Even before marriage, desire for others is considered sinful, as per doctrine's denouncing pre-marital sex. I CAN'T WANT TO FUCK ANYBODY!!! EVER!! GODDAMNFUCKERLOO!!
..ahem. Anyway, this obviously boils down to deeper philosophy with me, more generally pertaining to religion, and more specifically pertaining to religious conceptions of god. I don't understand why, if I am a creature of god, he would design me to procreate, program my eyes to train on beautiful symmetrical women with shapely birthing hips and baby-feeding mammaries, allow my penis to be stimulated through even incedental contact, pump my flesh full of raging hormones, and then tell me NOT TO LUST, NOT TO MASTURBATE, NOT TO FUCK WOMEN OUT OF WEDLOCK, AND DEFINITELY NOT TO FUCK MORE THAN ONE OF THEM. What kind of sick bastard would set such things at odds and torture his creations so? So if I don't masturbate, and don't consciously have lustful thoughts, are NOCTURNAL EMISSIONS SINFUL? Can I get sent to hell for things that occur during R-E-M sleep?
Anway..speaking of sleep...I obviously need some. Among other things. Oh yeah. SOME PUSSY W00T CAN'T WAIT TO GET MY OUT OF WEDLOCK HORNYCAKE FUCK-ON PATNA OOH WEE!!
MARRIAGE = FO BUSTAZ!!
j/k
Goodnight now
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Desire is not demonized, infidelity is. You've got one heckuva Catholic Guilt bent on things to equate the two.
Desire is information. Most people lack the balls to act on that information and either end the relationship they're in, or (preferably, to me) discuss with their partner about how to meet the underlying need.
It takes no balls to cheat (or even break up in a lot of cases). It takes balls to be with somebody and expect them to satisfy you-- and to allow the same expectations of yourself. Serial monogomy is another way of saying you can't get what you want from a partner and blaming it on biology.
Edit: By the way, it sounds like you're arguing some sort of either or, with Religious Marriage as Ordained vs some more libertine view. I'm not arguing from doctrine at all-- far from it-- I'm arguing from a pragmatic view that has seen many, many relationships fail not becuase of underlying biology, but because the partners involved failed to take chances to keep their relationship vital, and "settled" too early.
Desire is information. Most people lack the balls to act on that information and either end the relationship they're in, or (preferably, to me) discuss with their partner about how to meet the underlying need.
It takes no balls to cheat (or even break up in a lot of cases). It takes balls to be with somebody and expect them to satisfy you-- and to allow the same expectations of yourself. Serial monogomy is another way of saying you can't get what you want from a partner and blaming it on biology.
Edit: By the way, it sounds like you're arguing some sort of either or, with Religious Marriage as Ordained vs some more libertine view. I'm not arguing from doctrine at all-- far from it-- I'm arguing from a pragmatic view that has seen many, many relationships fail not becuase of underlying biology, but because the partners involved failed to take chances to keep their relationship vital, and "settled" too early.
Outcast2004
Banned
My guess from reading Ned's posts is that he's a lonely, bitter soul......
There's nothing better than being in a solid relationship and not having to worry if she's still into you or not.
I've been married to my wife about a year and a half now, been with her on and off for 10. I've been with other women, yet went right back to her. A relationship (or marriage) isn't about just sex, it's about everything emotional and supportive that comes with it.
I'll admit I find women attractive, and my wife finds men attractive. Doesn't mean I'm so weak of will that I'm willing to scrifice all I have with my wife over a meaningless romp in the sack which would probably turn out to be a disappointment anyway.
Basically Ned, don't knock a solid, committed relatioship until you are actually having one. You'll find it to be a great thing to have someone who gets you completely and loves you no matter what. Warts and all.
Ignatz hit it right on the head, "Desire is not demonized, infidelity is...".
Both my wife and I admire an attractive person of the opposite sex, but neither of us would entertain the thought of ruining what we have.
There's nothing better than being in a solid relationship and not having to worry if she's still into you or not.
I've been married to my wife about a year and a half now, been with her on and off for 10. I've been with other women, yet went right back to her. A relationship (or marriage) isn't about just sex, it's about everything emotional and supportive that comes with it.
I'll admit I find women attractive, and my wife finds men attractive. Doesn't mean I'm so weak of will that I'm willing to scrifice all I have with my wife over a meaningless romp in the sack which would probably turn out to be a disappointment anyway.
Basically Ned, don't knock a solid, committed relatioship until you are actually having one. You'll find it to be a great thing to have someone who gets you completely and loves you no matter what. Warts and all.
Ignatz hit it right on the head, "Desire is not demonized, infidelity is...".
Both my wife and I admire an attractive person of the opposite sex, but neither of us would entertain the thought of ruining what we have.
- Status