Can we have an intelligent debate about what 'marriage' means?

[sparkybabe]

It is no secret that my marriage is breaking up, but in the process I have been reviewing what I feel about marriage. I have been married for 17 years, and have 3 dc. When I got maried, I realise now that I was looking for someone who had a) good job b) good genes intelectually and c) someone I liked. Love did not really come into it, I suppose I knew I didn't love him, but I liked him, we had lots in common and as I said he was a good provider.
Anyway, thinking about marriage - its 'man-made, ie made by MAN! Why then is it so Man-unfriendly?
WHat do men want - sex, lots of it, with different women. It's in their make-up to spread their seed throughout the gene pool. Why do they sign up to be with ONE woman for life? It's not logical, but we are indoctrinated (men too) to think of 'adulterers' as criminal.

Women need someone who can bring home the food, provide shelter and safety, and impregnate them. The mariage vows actually benefit women far more than they do men. So why?
Basic human needs are
Warmth
Food
Water
Sex.
Why is ok to share 3 of these 4 with others, but not the 4th?
I am not religious in any way, so pleaase don't come on here saying well Christ wanted us to be monogamous and to come between a man and his wife is wrong. That is too easy. Why is it wrong? Why are we sooo indoctrinated as to feel that sex with other men/women is wrong? Why is it we feel murderous rage against the OW/OM? Would we be happier in so-called 'open' marriages? Why do we get so possessive about our spouses?

Intelligent debate please? I am interested.

Fidelity also makes sense from a health position too, HIV, Hepatitis, The Clap, clamydia, syphilis, genital warts. Condoms are for safer sex not safe sex.

There is nothing wrong with individuals choosing to be monogamous and making agreements with partners to remain monogamous. Something that is fundamentally important to the majority of human beings is honesty/trust/promises, because as social beings, we need to be able to expect that people will keep their promises and do what they say they are going to do.

However, marriage is not just about sex and sex is not just about marriage. Plenty of people refuse monogamy and negotiate a variety of relationships that suit them (some of these people have imaginary friends religious beliefs, some are free from religion). It's quite important to work out what's right for you and what is or might be a deal-breaker before agreeing to marry or move in with someone.
I also think it's important to separate, in some ways, co-parenting from couplehood ie if you are no longer romantically involved with someone who is half the genestock of your DC, you should try to keep your relationship with them as amicable as possible by thinking of that person as co-parent not XP-the-monster.

O fgs - doesn;t anyone else see that regardless of whether you are 'religious' you are subjst to the conditioning of religion? Fidelity is key lulumama- because the bible says it is and there have been centuries of 'culture' telling you it is! Linden - regardles of how we pay for dc - sex is a natural urge. What I am questioning is why sex is WRONG WRONG WRONG with this person (who is in a relationship) but is OK with THAT person (who isn't?) Sex is sex. I am not talking about diseases. I am not talking about practicalities. I am talking about WHY we feel as we do!

I am not trying to explain or condone infidelity. My situation is that I codn't care whether DH does or doesn't with anyone else. This has come about gradually, and a few years ago I would have jumped up and down screaming blue murder if he'd slept with someone else. Why have I changed? Becuase I am no longer constrained by SOCIETY's idea of marriage.

"O fgs - doesn;t anyone else see that regardless of whether you are 'religious' you are subjst to the conditioning of religion?"

I'm not conditioned by religion. I think about religious values and decide whether they still hold or whether they are outdated. But fundamentally I make my own decisions - I'm a grown-up, not a conditioned robot .

"Sex is not a basic need. You don't die without it."

I think sex is a very fundamental need. I am very, very, very unhappy without it (depressed and suicidal).

Lots and lots of people are miserable and don't know why though, Dittany .

Anyway, I cannot fathom why anyone would live with a partner and not have loving, enjoyable sex with them or why anyone would have a child with someone they were not madly in love with.

The OP married because she was looking for a meal ticket. Bad move.

While lack of sex won't actually kill a person, some people do become very unhappy without it. (Before anyone starts saying taht this is just 'excusing men's 'bad' behaviour', hae a read of some of the very sad threads from women whos partners refuse to have sex with them.)

ALso, OP, you seem to be saying that everyone except you is monogamous, can't break their conditioning, and miserable because of it. Bullshit. Lots of people are happily, consensually free from monogamy.

Monogamy is basically a hardwired fetish for some people, a way of conforming to social norms for others, and - sure - a miserable prison to some who need to think it through and make more ethical choices ie refusing monogamy.

Dittany - I am not trying to insist that other peoples feelings are wrong - I wanted a debate about them. I dont care whether you or DH or anyone are faithful or not, I just wondered why we have this whole 'faithful' issue. I'm not foisting my view on anyone!

Anna - a mealticket? Maybe, but it was still 17 years, not 5 minutes. I didn't believe in love, and still don't. Maybe because I haven't met the right person, or maybe because I believe in myself, and only I can look after me. Whether your dh sleeps around, or I do, it's how you react to that that is interesting. At the risk of being repetitive, why is it hurtful? Yes you can choose to be monogamous that is not the question. Marla you are right, the question is not about marriage, but about relationships. And Morals come out of Religion, surely.
As I said before - I can eat with and talk to other people, even members of the opposite sex, without feeling guilty or being condemned as a Scarlet woman. But if our religion 2000 years ago had said - you must not eat or drink with others - then where would we be today? In fact some religions (Plymouth Brethren for one) actually forbid followers to eat with non-believers. So members of that religion are constrained by that. I bet they feel just as guilty if they eat with an unbeleiver as if they sleep with one.

Discuss.

Sparkybabe: Well, religious taboo is basically a way of people justifying their stupidity and cruelty, and religion is first and foremost something that was invented by some people in order to be able to control others. If folk persist in believing bullshit about imaginary beings that care who they share their chips or bodily fluids with, then as long as they are not actually harassing others they can be safely left alone in their idiocy.

GOing back to the sex-isn't-necessary argument. sex (in the modern Western world) is more like art or music: you won;t die without it but a lack of it will make life less happy than a sufficiency.

Hurrah SGB - thank you!

Oh I know that sex isn't necessary for our health, but it is necessary forthe survival of the species, which is why I have not responded to all those saying exactly that, that we don't need it. Personally no, but ultimately, we are driven to procreate.

MArla no, intercourse isn't like eating. BUT if 2000 years ago we had been told not to ........
oh forget it.

Dittany - not trying to foist my ideas on them, just maybe to think a bit about WHY they would stick a knife into the dh if he strayed. If they think it's because its important for trust and all the rest, then fine but surely they shoudl think about why we expect that trust? And wuold it be better if we didn't have this expectation? Bearing in mind the human-animal? As I say, not condoning it. Trying to understand myself more, and to be a bit more understnding of others. Just saying -well that's the way it is because it has been for 2000 years/millenia, is more worrying for me.

So many have come on here quite defensive about their marriage and why fidelity means so much, but haven;t thought that it's because they have been conditioned to it.Anna even suggested that I thought she was a conditioned robot, but then I think we all are, to a certain extent. Yes think about whether it is all still relevant but without considering the idea that we are conditioned, you will just go with the conditioning. (if that makes sense?)

This thread is quite barking. Plenty of posters have tried to explain to you why monogamy exists outside of the context of religion and why that is important to them. You really are just going "la la la la la you're all brainwashed why won't someone engage with me?"

We've all given up. Well done.

As some people have said before the human-animal is unique. No other species takes as long to physically and emotionally mature and as such it is an advantage to that offspring to have both parents responsible (around) for its maturity into an adult.

Spark YOU were the one who brought culture into the mix - so why can't you use such cultural reasons to explain why your scenario would potentially cause chaos?

SGB as usual you speak a lot of sense - my monogomy question was directed at the OP as I know you respect an individual's choice.

People have different reasons for getting married. As long as partners share the same opinions as to what marriage means to them whether monogamous or not then it matters to them that they are married. OP you have a fixation that all men just want open relationships - check out some mens forums to see an alternative view, there are some men that despise cheating partners and also view monogomy as an ideal.

And to agree with georgimama,time to go!

Ooh, thanks Bink, I am a very mouthy quite newbie and love to sound off so not hard to spot

well good for you sparky. you don;t need or desire fidelity or monogamy

does not mean that that is right for everyone

i have explained my viewpoint, you persist in basically telling me i am a brainwashed idiot

so much for 'intelligent' debate

certain things are intuitive, being kind, nurturing your life partner, being a unit, rather than a selfish live following your own desires

if you want to be a total hedonist, knock yourself out and good luck to you. but stop being so bloody rude and insulting to those who are in monogamous marriages, and have made that choice