"The goal of marriage should be stability, not monogomy."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dan Savage on the Virtues of Infidelity

(excerpt)

Savage has for 20 years been saying monogamy is harder than we admit and articulating a sexual ethic that he thinks honors the reality, rather than the romantic ideal, of marriage. In Savage Love, his weekly column, he inveighs against the American obsession with strict fidelity. In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community's tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness. Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can't help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

"I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy," Savage told me, "when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted."

The view that we need a little less fidelity in marriages is dangerous for a gay-marriage advocate to hold. It feeds into the stereotype of gay men as compulsively promiscuous, and it gives ammunition to all the forces, religious and otherwise, who say that gay families will never be real families and that we had better stop them before they ruin what is left of marriage. But Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs. Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners. And that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves.

http://www.nytimes.c...&WT.mc_ev=click

[Danno 1,228]

Dan Savage on the Virtues of Infidelity

(excerpt)

Savage has for 20 years been saying monogamy is harder than we admit and articulating a sexual ethic that he thinks honors the reality, rather than the romantic ideal, of marriage. In Savage Love, his weekly column, he inveighs against the American obsession with strict fidelity. In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community's tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness. Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can't help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

"I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy," Savage told me, "when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted."

The view that we need a little less fidelity in marriages is dangerous for a gay-marriage advocate to hold. It feeds into the stereotype of gay men as compulsively promiscuous, and it gives ammunition to all the forces, religious and otherwise, who say that gay families will never be real families and that we had better stop them before they ruin what is left of marriage. But Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs. Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners. And that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves.

http://www.nytimes.c...&WT.mc_ev=click

The main (but not sole) purpose of Marriage is to form secure families in a society.

No where in this writing did I see any mention of children.... and how all this "openness" in sex would affect them?

This type of thing sounds good when you say it real fast but when you think about the effects it has on others it most often comes out as selfishness.

I think it's best if these "backroom affairs" remain so, to actually call them a virtue is kinda sick. IMO

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Dan Savage ? ####### would he know about marriages and children? He's a ** sexual and lives with another man.

Of course he would say having sex with multiple people other than your spouse is a good thing...that's what those people do.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Why_Me

[Danno 1,228]

Steve, whats your opinion on this?

[NickD 203]

Title of this thread is, :

"The goal of marriage should be stability, not monogomy."

Perhaps the goal should be both stability and monogamy, without monogamy, (you misspelled that by the way), and with human nature seeking permanency in a relationship. By playing around with other people, those people are also seeking permanency in your relationship with you, so this kills any thoughts about stability in the existing relationship.

Sure a pile of contradictions in that synopsis.

Not to get int a long discussion on this subject, came quickly to the conclusion my first marriage IQ was somewhere in the area of between 1 and 2. Or in other words a complete idiot. Married a girl that had the same attributes as me, we never had a marriage, but a competition with each other. Second go around found a complete opposite so together we make a whole. Another requirement, instead of, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.", was to find a wife that I coveted. If I met another woman and had doubts with the one I was with, a sure sign that woman I was with was not the right one.

Trust is the more important attribute in a relationship, without complete trust in all matters, including credit cards, there is no relationship.

Occurred to me in my professional, if I had to rely on local resources to stay in business, would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. Was forced to look at the entire known world to stay alive. So why am I looking for a mate, locally? That is where the completely unknown to me then USCIS came into my life. And the only reason why I am on this board.

Ha, I still covet my wife and we did survive that USCIS ordeal. Why spoil that by playing around? But if either she or I do it, time to terminate that relationship and try again. But feel it would be criminal to void that trust we put into each other. Finding that special person is nothing short of a miracle.

[Fandango 1,439]

Dan Savage ? ####### would he know about marriages and children? He's a ** sexual and lives with another man.

Of course he would say having sex with multiple people other than your spouse is a good thing...that's what those people do.

'those people'????

You have already declared your support to disallow them to marry, then you bash them for non-married behavior. Nice.

____________

WRT to this article, it's really up to each couple what they feel their marriage is all about. For those who are not particularly religious, and ascribe to the 'forsaking all others' aspect, perhaps marriage doesn't have to be defined as not having something on the side. Who knows? Fidelity comes in all forms...there are those who feel emotional fidelity is worth more than physical. My husband and I are not two of those people....we believe very much in fidelity of every kind, and neither one of us have a desire to have extracurricular activities. But I do have this couple friend, who have no problem with the other person having a 'fling' every now and again, providing it's all out in the open and agreed upon. I don't particularly understand it, but it seems to work for them. And their marriage is successful, and has lasted over 10 years at this point.

So what is marriage, as it is legally defined? A partnership. If you remove the religious aspect of it, the gov't should only be looking at marriage as a legal union between two people - presumably for the tax benefit purpose, and next of kin aspect, etc. How those two parties want to conduct their partnership is entirely up to them, and what works for one, may not work for another.

This theory does not threaten me, nor my ideals of what a marriage is...which is entirely different to what I just described above. Nor does the theory of gay marriage threaten me, or make me feel like it's diminishing what my marriage stands for.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

'those people'????

You have already declared your support to disallow them to marry, then you bash them for non-married behavior. Nice.

____________

WRT to this article, it's really up to each couple what they feel their marriage is all about. For those who are not particularly religious, and ascribe to the 'forsaking all others' aspect, perhaps marriage doesn't have to be defined as not having something on the side. Who knows? Fidelity comes in all forms...there are those who feel emotional fidelity is worth more than physical. My husband and I are not two of those people....we believe very much in fidelity of every kind, and neither one of us have a desire to have extracurricular activities. But I do have this couple friend, who have no problem with the other person having a 'fling' every now and again, providing it's all out in the open and agreed upon. I don't particularly understand it, but it seems to work for them. And their marriage is successful, and has lasted over 10 years at this point.

So what is marriage, as it is legally defined? A partnership. If you remove the religious aspect of it, the gov't should only be looking at marriage as a legal union between two people - presumably for the tax benefit purpose, and next of kin aspect, etc. How those two parties want to conduct their partnership is entirely up to them, and what works for one, may not work for another.

This theory does not threaten me, nor my ideals of what a marriage is...which is entirely different to what I just described above. Nor does the theory of gay marriage threaten me, or make me feel like it's diminishing what my marriage stands for.

I can just hear it now. "You kids go shopping with mommy so daddy can stay home and sleep with uncle George."

Edited July 1, 2011 by Why_Me

[mawilson 2,133]

Of course he would say having sex with multiple people other than your spouse is a good thing...that's what those people do.

You mean people like you who have sex with hookers?

[Fandango 1,439]

I can just hear it now. "You kids go shopping with mommy so daddy can stay home and sleep with uncle George."

a - What other people do is their business and not yours

b - Why do use the excuse of 'for the children', when you don't even have any of your own? Leave worrying about the children to the parents of those children.

c - What Mark said.

eta:

d - Whether the parties involved are married or not, your scenario can still happen right now, so what's the point?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Anita Cocktail

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WRT to this article, it's really up to each couple what they feel their marriage is all about. For those who are not particularly religious, and ascribe to the 'forsaking all others' aspect, perhaps marriage doesn't have to be defined as not having something on the side. Who knows? Fidelity comes in all forms...there are those who feel emotional fidelity is worth more than physical. My husband and I are not two of those people....we believe very much in fidelity of every kind, and neither one of us have a desire to have extracurricular activities. But I do have this couple friend, who have no problem with the other person having a 'fling' every now and again, providing it's all out in the open and agreed upon. I don't particularly understand it, but it seems to work for them. And their marriage is successful, and has lasted over 10 years at this point.

So what is marriage, as it is legally defined? A partnership. If you remove the religious aspect of it, the gov't should only be looking at marriage as a legal union between two people - presumably for the tax benefit purpose, and next of kin aspect, etc. How those two parties want to conduct their partnership is entirely up to them, and what works for one, may not work for another.

This theory does not threaten me, nor my ideals of what a marriage is...which is entirely different to what I just described above. Nor does the theory of gay marriage threaten me, or make me feel like it's diminishing what my marriage stands for.

That's a good term - emotional fidelity.