The New Monogamy - Social monogamy instead of Sexual monogamy

This thread is about the change of marital expectations and what is core attributes of a modern marriage. I am still in the closet in the sense of my exploring new horizons, but ironically, it has made me a better lover at home.

I don't really buy some of the comments on evolutionary psychology, how we think does is not impacted by ten generations back in time, but what constructs my behavior is based on environment and stimuli (many providers in Eccie stimulate me, LOL), and I how choose to learn. Not what some monkeys are doing now, or did millenia ago. I control my behavior, and I make my choices. Evolution Psychology is another way to make a hypothesis (a guess)

I also think the development of the internet, has made extramarital affairs easier, as well finding a great escort from the privacy of your home. Technology is allowing me to exchange notes with some one half way around the world.

I never mentioned nor advocated anal penetration in any fashion or form. You're making that up. I would appreciate your not attributing false statements to me. Thank you.


Bill Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Well, anal intercourse is the kind of sex that is at the most risk for causing HIV or at least being able to transmit it more easily from one person to the other, rather than other sexual intercourse methods. It`s because of the mucuous membranes being more soluble for the Virus . You mentioned HIV , so it is logical that this debate comes up. :-)


In a strange way, and I don`t mean to sound offensive, it is NOT the people who are openly having more sexual partners that are at risk of carrying no condoms. I most openly witnessed so called "monogamous* people, who hide their other relationships wishing to do (or even doing) BB without all partners consent.

That is more risky. So - attributing this whole HIV discussion to a topic about non-monogamy is kind of clichè ...

Hugs, and again, no offense! There are black sheeps at every side of the spectre. It is just less easy to hide things and be careful when you pretend to be monogamous, because how would you even bring up the discussion. And again, there are plenty of monogamous people doing others BB without even thinking twice and lying about it , too.

This thread is about the change of marital expectations and what is core attributes of a modern marriage. I am still in the closet in the sense of my exploring new horizons, but ironically, it has made me a better lover at home.

I don't really buy some of the comments on evolutionary psychology, how we think does is not impacted by ten generations back in time, but what constructs my behavior is based on environment and stimuli (many providers in Eccie stimulate me, LOL), and I how choose to learn. Not what some monkeys are doing now, or did millenia ago. I control my behavior, and I make my choices. Evolution Psychology is another way to make a hypothesis (a guess)

I also think the development of the internet, has made extramarital affairs easier, as well finding a great escort from the privacy of your home. Technology is allowing me to exchange notes with some one half way around the world. Originally Posted by lostforkate

Exactly, that is my point, too. And I might add, that science (here - social science) is a matter of interpretation and there were centuries without WOMEN in science, so it`s of course a male and patriarchal infuenced way of interpreting findings. Aka "women should not stray, so lets find some biological evidence and interpretations , that it makes no sense for them to do so". Books like the "sperm war"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars ) have since found other interpretations. And so it continues.... It`s not a battle of evidence, it`s a battle of interpretations. ANd there are not methods of verifications (Sir Karl Popper) , just methods of falsifications. One contradicting finding makes all other findings "useless" or inconvenient, that is why you can only interprete in estimates , never in "guarantees". That is what - again - makes religion different of science. Religion (belief systems) operate in guarantees. Science doesn`t. It operates in evidence and interpretations. Anyone is free to find different evidence , and so the evolvement continues :-).

A good example is the one of the swan (unfortunately I don`t recall the correct quotes or who made the findings - maybe some of you know), which was portrayed for centuries as THE prime and honorable example of life-long monogamy and bonding. Then someone found out that is not true either, and they do stray as well. So, I guess, it`s a matter of focus.

Same with the women and uterus and hysterectomy. A friend of mine made her thesis on "non carcinogenic hysterectomy" and found that the idea of removing and intact uterus , just because it might be inconvenient for surgeons (bleeding occurs easier) is a VERY patriarchal idea. It stems from the meta-theory that women are there to reproduce, and if the reproductive organ is not needed anymore, then it has no use.

My friend found in her thesis, that this surgery is advocated a lot, just for fun and without any medical indication ("oh, let`s remove the uterus, too, just because we operate somewhere nearby, and it might be a bit more handy, because we are too lazy to work around a little more bleeding)

and it left the women damaged and it was found that the uterus is very useful for sexual lubrification or even sexual feelings.

The Idea of the "uterus" being a useless organ stems from the centuries where the "hystera" (uterus, etc.) was said to be the reason for women being in some kind of - later to be called histrionic (watch the name!) - state of minds due to sexual insatisfaction or being raped and abused. Of course the latter was not mentioned, as the cause was seen in the - scary - female organs. So, another method of gaining control over women.

Sigmund Freud actually was the first to point out the reason for the "histrionic" women: it was because the sexual satisfaction was not there, since women were expected to just lie there and not move and let the man "have it". And some were simply lousy at "having it".

But the Idea of the "uterus" "hystera" of being some scary organ that causes irrational behaviour has been the reason of it`s lack of respect even in medicine.

Things and interpretations changed , of course, when women were allowed to be scientists, too.

No one would think of just cutting off a man`s balls because he does not need them anymore, right? Or sterilize him, because he is over the years of being of any reproductive use.

Well, anal intercourse is the kind of sex that is at the most risk for causing HIV or at least being able to transmit it more easily from one person to the other, rather than other sexual intercourse methods. It`s because of the mucuous membranes being more soluble for the Virus . You mentioned HIV , so it is logical that this debate comes up. :-)
... Originally Posted by ninasastri

OMG, Nina. Do you have ANY idea what you've just done? You've opened the Holy Grail of Idiocy and Ignorance. Saying the words AIDS around Billbo is like using the word "Bomb" around the TSA, you've opened yourself up to be manhandled by ignorance!

Look for it. Here it comes...

All I can say is, you are right Nina. I do forget that impact of culture, past a present, and how it can direct behavior. You keep me on my toes, if not step on them too once in a while, but I like that about you. I find religion to be more paradoxical then a guarantee, and that would be a different discussion.

Around the world there are many heart breaking travesties against women, and I wish it were not the case.

OMG, Nina. Do you have ANY idea what you've just done? You've opened the Holy Grail of Idiocy and Ignorance. Saying the words AIDS around Billbo is like using the word "Bomb" around the TSA, you've opened yourself up to be manhandled by ignorance!

Look for it. Here it comes... Originally Posted by JDNorthface

Still waiting.... Where is HE?

All I can say is, you are right Nina. I do forget that impact of culture, past a present, and how it can direct behavior. You keep me on my toes, if not step on them too once in a while, but I like that about you. I find religion to be more paradoxical then a guarantee, and that would be a different discussion.

Around the world there are many heart breaking travesties against women, and I wish it were not the case. Originally Posted by lostforkate

Thank you, you`re so sweet, I do like your compliments. Thank you. I also am glad you found your way to eccie and enjoy the communications. I love the transpersonal aspect of religion (Think Terence Mc Kenna, Ken Wilber, Stanislav Grof) and how it connects to transpersonal Psychotherapy and consciousness exploration. But yes, whole other topic of discussion ....

Oh the whole psychoanalysis was built around a travesty of women. Think Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Sigmund Freud`s Seduction Theory .

"Masson is best known for his conclusions about Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis. In his book The Assault on Truth, Masson argues that Freud may have abandoned his seduction theory because he feared that granting the truth of his female patients' claims that they had been sexually abused would hinder the acceptance of his psychoanalytic methods" - Wikipedia

Here a bit about the constant "changes" in the interpretation of the seduction theory: First Freud was thinking abuse, then he was thinking fantasies ... ha ha ... god knows why?

Freud's seduction theory was a hypothesis posited in the mid-1890s by Sigmund Freud that he believed provided the solution to the problem of the origins of hysteria and obsessional neurosis. According to the theory, a repressed memory of an early childhood sexual abuse or molestation experience was the essential precondition for hysterical or obsessional symptoms, with the addition of an active sexual experience up to the age of eight for the latter.[1]

"In the traditional account of development of seduction theory, Freud initially thought that his patients were relating more or less factual stories of sexual mistreatment, and that the sexual abuse was responsible for many of his patients' neuroses and other mental health problems.[2] Within a few years Freud abandoned his theory, concluding that the memories of sexual abuse were in fact imaginary fantasies.[3]

An alternative account that has come to the fore in recent Freud scholarship emphasizes that the theory as posited by Freud was that hysteria and obsessional neurosis result from unconscious memories of sexual abuse in infancy.[4] In the three seduction theory papers published in 1896, Freud stated that with all his current patients he had been able to uncover such abuse, mostly below the age of four.[5] These papers indicate that the patients did not relate stories of having been sexually abused in early childhood; rather, Freud used the analytic interpretation of symptoms and patients' associations, and the exerting of pressure on the patient, in an attempt to induce the "reproduction" of the deeply repressed memories he posited.[6] Though he reported he had succeeded in achieving this aim, he also acknowledged that the patients generally remained unconvinced that what they had experienced indicated that they had actually been sexually abused in infancy.[7] Freud's reports of the seduction theory episode went through a series of changes over the years, culminating in the traditional story based on his last account, in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.[8" (wikipedia)



According to Masson the changes occured (and have been denied) because the wealthy parents who sent their - female - kids into psychoanalysis (because - mummy dearest - they were not behaving appropriately...) were influential people , who did not like the idea of being portrayed as abusers of their own daughters. That is why Freud came up with the Idea that females have an "oedipus conflict" instead of acknowledging the truth in their words. Masson was confronted a lot with letters of Freud and other people, where in the end of his life, Freud really felt sorry for these things. These letters were kept in confidence and Masson was sued for publishing them in the first place. He got hands on them because he was working in the Freud Museum in London (so I read) .

Still waiting.... Where is HE? Originally Posted by ninasastri

Perhaps you are the first to intimidate him into silence. If so, you have my undying affection. And, of course, that of every other poster who has an IQ above 32.