Serial monogamy

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 15 2007 15:44

I really don't think I can bring myself to care who people have sex with or why I'm afraid...

I should probably keep my mouth shut then.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 15 2007 16:00
John. wrote:
I really don't think I can bring myself to care who people have sex with or why I'm afraid...

I should probably keep my mouth shut then.

No worries John - i don't have a view on a lot of the topics peeps get really excited about on these boards either...tongue but it is good to have the choice. cool

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 15 2007 16:06

I'm still a bit baffled by all this stuff about "human solidarity" to be honest. What the fuck does that have to do with who you do (or don't) sleep with?

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 15 2007 16:20
madashell wrote:
I'm still a bit baffled by all this stuff about "human solidarity" to be honest. What the fuck does that have to do with who you do (or don't) sleep with?

I can debaffle ya at some point - here or IRL but not atm as have stuff to do but if noone else steps in i will get back to ya at some point. cool

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 15 2007 16:25

John: I suppose that vicarious thrills are for lesser men than you tongue

LW: I don't know if I agree that people shouldn't try different relationships to be fashionable. I think its cute.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 15 2007 16:34

Lem

Hey its good to try stuff!!!! cool

But it is not cool to see someone struggling and out of their depth in a situ just to prove a point - like i said the Mark from Peep Show analogy. Nowt cool or fashionable there! tongue

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 15 2007 18:38
madashell wrote:
Quote:
It's destructive of solidarity because the two people involved are expected to never talk to each other again, and that goes for each side's friends, too

What are you, 14?

No, I was trying to explain how it could be viewed as destructive, idiot. Besides, some people can be as equally petty and vindictive when they're 14 as when they're 44.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 15 2007 18:40
Lone Wolf wrote:
the Mark from Peep Show analogy. Nowt cool or fashionable there! tongue

Not that I watch such geeky shows, but I honestly think that Mark from Peep Show is kinda cool. Like I say I haven't seen any of the new series tho.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 15 2007 18:42
revol68 wrote:
888 wrote:
madashell wrote:
Quote:
It's destructive of solidarity because the two people involved are expected to never talk to each other again, and that goes for each side's friends, too

What are you, 14?

No, I was trying to explain how it could be viewed as destructive, idiot.

what like expecting to take the only motorcar to the beach in the middle of a civil war?

muppet!

now i don't know what this ^^ means, but at least 888 will always have the solidarity of comrades grin

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 15 2007 18:46
revol68 wrote:
what like expecting to take the only motorcar to the beach in the middle of a civil war?

muppet!

what the fuck are you talking about? I never said that, and in any case how has that got anything to do with this? are you saying that it's impossible that there may be destruction of relations between people other than the two involved in a relationship when they break up? Consider the vast amount of hysterical squabbling that routinely goes on in divorce proceedings, fuckface.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
May 15 2007 18:53

no matter how terrible it is when a couple break up, it can't be as bad as when 3 or more break up! Therefore monogamy wins.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 15 2007 18:57
Quote:
I'm still a bit baffled by all this stuff about "human solidarity" to be honest. What the fuck does that have to do with who you do (or don't) sleep with?

Solidarity with the suffering of the loser in a sexual competition. Sexual selection is a free market which can’t be allowed to continue unregulated, otherwise it’s just wanton exploitation of the cruellest and most vulgar kind.

Daniel B
Offline
Joined: 6-04-07
May 15 2007 19:54

Surely the only purpose of committing to a Monogamous relationship is not to lose the object of your desire, be that sexual in the most primitive or otherwise emotional sense? If that need to remain no longer exists, how can it be healthy to stay put?

I also wonder if it's at all relevant to look to the Animal world (though I hope that doesn't sound terribly sordid). Have we evolved into Monogamous creatures and where are the examples?

John. wrote:
I really don't think I can bring myself to care who people have sex with or why I'm afraid...

I don't mean to be a grammar-fascist but surely there should be a comma after the "why", otherwise that means something really rather different...

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 15 2007 20:28
Quote:
exploitation

grin not sure if you mean the loser or the prize.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 15 2007 20:34
Daniel Brennan wrote:
Surely the only purpose of committing to a Monogamous relationship is not to lose the object of your desire, be that sexual in the most primitive or otherwise emotional sense? If that need to remain no longer exists, how can it be healthy to stay put?

I also wonder if it's at all relevant to look to the Animal world (though I hope that doesn't sound terribly sordid). Have we evolved into Monogamous creatures and where are the examples?

John. wrote:
I really don't think I can bring myself to care who people have sex with or why I'm afraid...

I don't mean to be a grammar-fascist but surely there should be a comma after the "why", otherwise that means something really rather different...

Daniel

Hey love that alternative meaning in Johns post - didn't pick up on that lol: grin If John wants to discuss why he fears matters sexual he only has to pm me.. heh! black bloc

Re: the animal kingdom - like the human kingdom variety abounds with different species and diff behaviour within species even - ie. monogamy, promiscuity, serial monogamy, homosexuality, polyamory, polygamy etc (without the marriage certificate in the latter case lol.. ) ....tongue

Love

LW X

Steggsie
Offline
Joined: 16-10-06
May 15 2007 21:41
Lone Wolf wrote:
Steggsie

Heh! black bloc The view from the moral high ground is just fine - better than being stuck in the lowlands heh! wink

Nah basically you and i both agree with madas on the "avoiding boxing people in" bit but i admit i was being a bit bitchy to ya cos i felt you were being bitchy and sarcastic to j. rogue who WAS referring to the practice of ethical polyamory and that was NOT the same as your throwaway comment about sleeping with a lot of people. J. Rogue is accurately, I think., stating that relationships take a lot of work and that in this work human solidarity can be built because trust, honesty etc would be being practiced. Just sleeping around doesn't really develop anything except maybe sore bits??? wink

Love

LW X

Lol, fair play. I do grasp rogue's distinction, but I don't see 'human solidarity' as a quantifable commodity which somehow disappates unless carefully apportioned among one's romantic partners. Hence my flippancy.

Anyway, you seem lovely. Watcha up to tomorrow night?

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 15 2007 23:24
Lone Wolf wrote:
Re: the animal kingdom - like the human kingdom variety abounds with different species and diff behaviour within species even - ie. monogamy, promiscuity, serial monogamy, homosexuality, polyamory, polygamy etc (without the marriage certificate in the latter case lol.. ) ....tongue

Apparently only 5% of mammals - including humans - form long lasting pair bonds, I read recently.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 16 2007 00:45
Steggsie wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
Steggsie

Heh! black bloc The view from the moral high ground is just fine - better than being stuck in the lowlands heh! wink

Nah basically you and i both agree with madas on the "avoiding boxing people in" bit but i admit i was being a bit bitchy to ya cos i felt you were being bitchy and sarcastic to j. rogue who WAS referring to the practice of ethical polyamory and that was NOT the same as your throwaway comment about sleeping with a lot of people. J. Rogue is accurately, I think., stating that relationships take a lot of work and that in this work human solidarity can be built because trust, honesty etc would be being practiced. Just sleeping around doesn't really develop anything except maybe sore bits??? wink

Love

LW X

Lol, fair play. I do grasp rogue's distinction, but I don't see 'human solidarity' as a quantifable commodity which somehow disappates unless carefully apportioned among one's romantic partners. Hence my flippancy.

Anyway, you seem lovely. Watcha up to tomorrow night?

Heh! black bloc Well you would be welcome to join me - my whereabouts tomorrow night have already been discussed on here - i am attending the SolFed Film Night in New Cross - if you wanna come up from Portsmouth i am sure i could engage you in a challenging pub convo after the film - which features strong femmes and there will be other strong femmes in the pub - Jason's partner for one -she is pretty amazing... red n black star so a night of challenge and potential humiliation is there for the price of the train fare.. wink

And also i was not talking about the careful apportioning of solidarity so much as its generation in the first place, and all the important life stuff is difficult to describe, let alone quantify and it never takes the form of a commodity. The exception to this is the production, purchase and consumption of vegan chocolate cake. cool

Glad you took my sore bits gag with good humour as it was meant to be taken. cool

And also i like alleycats anyways. wink

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 16 2007 00:46
888 wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
Re: the animal kingdom - like the human kingdom variety abounds with different species and diff behaviour within species even - ie. monogamy, promiscuity, serial monogamy, homosexuality, polyamory, polygamy etc (without the marriage certificate in the latter case lol.. ) ....tongue

Apparently only 5% of mammals - including humans - form long lasting pair bonds, I read recently.

And i am betting you are not in that 5 % wink

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 16 2007 01:40
888 wrote:
No, I was trying to explain how it could be viewed as destructive, idiot. Besides, some people can be as equally petty and vindictive when they're 14 as when they're 44.

Which is hardly limited to monogamous relationships. Fuckwit.

888 wrote:
Apparently only 5% of mammals - including humans - form long lasting pair bonds, I read recently.

Our closest relatives are the great apes. Personally, I don't intend on throwing faeces at my closest friends any time soon.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
May 16 2007 02:15

I'm a bit puzzled by this exchange:

Quote:
madashell wrote:
Quote:
It's destructive of solidarity because the two people involved are expected to never talk to each other again, and that goes for each side's friends, too

What are you, 14?

This behaviour might be childish but it is very common, in my part of the world anyway. It fairly often gets very nasty indeed where children are involved, and therefore a clean break cannot be made, and I am guessing from the terms of the interesting discussion above that most people posting do not have children and have not had to confront that aspect of the serial monogamous system. This is a guess not an accusation btw.

My interest here is looking at a social structure not telling people off about their personal arrangements. I suppose my own history is one of "soft" serial monogamy; and I have noticed that many people outside of my left-liberal circle find it bizarre even creepy that I am friendly with several of my partners ex-partners and so forth. Very likely this is often different amongst the young childless and cool, for whom a relationship is longterm if it spreads over Christmas and Easter, But I find my blended family with a linking chain of half-siblings extending off in both directions often causes discomfort to my staighter acquaintances..

"Polyamory" did not particularly work for me, I have to say. I use the quotes because I think what I and my then partner really did was more mutual adultery which is not the same. When my partner slept with other men almost everyone, including freelove loudmouths, treated me as a cuckold; and when I slept with other women my then partner went around seeking sympathy from other women as a wronged wife. And quite often getting it. I have observed a number of "polyamorous" relationships from the outside, they seem to founder for roughly similar reasons.

In my last relationship (I am in effect a widower with children) we agreed that we would be faithful but not jealous and that a slip here and there would not be accounted mortal to the relationship. This mostly seemed to work OK.

I mention this autobiography to make it clear that I'm not peddling some correct line norm, just tyring to look at an issue.

Oh, and:

Quote:
PPS redstruggle - good to read your post - hope to see some of your other posts on here....welcome newbie..altho i don't know why jez called you redwing - perhaps he is a twitcher?? (maybe cos he doesn't have enough sex... )

Sorry redstruggle. I think redwing was a character in the Billy Bunter stories. What is a twitcher ?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 16 2007 02:33
jeremytrewindixon wrote:

"Polyamory" did not particularly work for me, I have to say. I use the quotes because I think what I and my then partner really did was more mutual adultery which is not the same. When my partner slept with other men almost everyone, including freelove loudmouths, treated me as a cuckold; and when I slept with other women my then partner went around seeking sympathy from other women as a wronged wife. And quite often getting it. I have observed a number of "polyamorous" relationships from the outside, they seem to founder for roughly similar reasons.

Polyamory is bullshit. I got roped into believing a couple friend of mine was all free and whatnot, then it caused nothing but problems. Serial monogamy is fine.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 16 2007 02:35

Hey Jeremy

Hey thanks for sharing...I found your story really interesting...tongue

A twitcher is a name for peeps who enjoy bird-watching...and i THINK there might be a bird called a redwing tho i don't know but there is at least one twitcher on lc who perhaps could clarify..

Yeah what you and your ex were practicing was an open relationship as opposed to polyamory - i think your experience kinda illustrates the point i was making in that a lot of people struggle in practice to manage an arrangement that seem like a good idea in theory and may even be ok at first til doubts creep in and insecurities etc...i mean you are quite right that you should not have been made to feel cuckolded and your ex was off limits IMHO for seeking solace for you acting on what you had - presumably! - both agreed and what she had also been doing - or did you not agree it?? Assuming you did then this, as i said, illustrates why some peeps are just not cut out for less conventional arrangements - there is no shame in this - we are all different! I just think you have to keep communicating... (i don't mean to sound preachy embarrassed ) cos sometimes both peeps might have changed their mind about the arrangement but don't like to say thinking the other person is happy..

The freelove loudmouths should have kept their traps shut.. angry Prolly all talk anyway...

Re: society censure - yeah not surprised you got this - hopefully you can see this mostly stemmed from other peeps insecurities?? I mean perhaps they should have looked to their own lovelives before criticising yours... roll eyes

Yeah we are mostly young and childless here tho not exclusively... tongue

Shame you were not around last year - i started a 12 page thread on Extended Sexuality - there were some really cool posts and povs but it got lost in the Great Libcom Hack of 06. angry

Soz to hear you are a widower - hope your children are well and doing fine etc etc.

Love

LW X

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 16 2007 03:31
Quote:
But it is not cool to see someone struggling and out of their depth in a situ just to prove a point
Quote:
There is nothing more wince-inducing than someone trying to experiment with a sexual or relationship model that doesn't suit in order to look cool

what relationship model someone uses is bound to be influenced by what their friends like. i'm not sure i know what you mean tho.

i regularly say on this threads that "I quite like jealousy", so I'll say it again!

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 6 2022 10:09

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 16 2007 10:04
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
This behaviour might be childish but it is very common, in my part of the world anyway. It fairly often gets very nasty indeed where children are involved, and therefore a clean break cannot be made, and I am guessing from the terms of the interesting discussion above that most people posting do not have children and have not had to confront that aspect of the serial monogamous system. This is a guess not an accusation btw.

As I said earlier, yes, people can be horribly petty, vindictive and childish when they're upset. But it's not exactly limited to monogamous relationships.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 16 2007 10:36
madashell wrote:
888 wrote:
No, I was trying to explain how it could be viewed as destructive, idiot. Besides, some people can be as equally petty and vindictive when they're 14 as when they're 44.

Which is hardly limited to monogamous relationships. Fuckwit.

Now now be good. He wasn't even saying what he personally thought. And you're fellow AFers so you should be nicer.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
May 16 2007 11:08
John. wrote:
And you're fellow AFers so you should be nicer.

If only they had had sex more often sad

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 17 2007 01:04
madashell wrote:
As I said earlier, yes, people can be horribly petty, vindictive and childish when they're upset. But it's not exactly limited to monogamous relationships.

But what's it got to do with being 14?

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
May 17 2007 04:01

Lone Wolf says:

Quote:
Assuming you did then this, as i said, illustrates why some peeps are just not cut out for less conventional arrangements - there is no shame in this - we are all different

!

Yeah this is all true but what I'm trying to look at is the fact (as I see it ) that serial monogamy is the conventional mode in the first place. Any mode of living that defies the current conventions is going to hit problems, especially when they relate to matters as close to the bone as sexual norms and taboos.

Thanks for the good wishes btw Lone Wolf, I may have painted my personal experience with an open relationship too grimly. It certainly had its upside, and many years later the woman in question is still my friend. But I was amazed by conventional skeletons it shook out of surprising closets.

Um...the guy whose just come out of the 16 year relationship (forgive me, your name is on a previous page and I'm rushing) .......I guess what makes serial monogamy "serial" is the break at the end......often a train wreck where there are kids involved, too often even when there aren't. Monogamy-for-life used to be enforced by ostracism of offenders against it and other kinds of discrimination, I would not want that back. But we seem from where I stand to have settled into an alternative norm where a first marriage or marriage-like partnership is a rite of passage rather than a lifetime commitment and the result is often a lifetime of broken love, "destruction of human solidarity" . I can't see how this can be good.