Are you monogamous?

Also, what sex are you?

Clarification: I am asking about preference, not practice.

You into oldfangled notions like democracy or something? ;)

B-)

Only one person for me! Mister Greekspeak! :hug::loveya:

I've been married 12 years (and we dated a year before getting married). He's been the only one for me. It may sound corny, but the longer we're together, the better *it* gets. :blush:

I love hearing stories like yours. Restores my faith in relationships.

and with him for 6 next month. You're right, it just gets better!!

and btw, it's 'gender', not 'sex' :)

"Gender" applies to words, "sex" applies to people and animals.

whereas sex is a biological classification. So i suppose one could say that both can apply equally. :)

Asexual, on the other hand, when applied to humans, generally refers to one's sexual behavior, or lack thereof. Someone who has an indeterminate sex/gender is termed 'intersex', afaik.

The meaning of gender seems to have broadened. That makes sense since English has only one gender--all words are neuter.

Spanish has two. For an intersting example, love is masculine (el amor), and war is feminine (la guerra).

And a man's shirt is feminine, while a woman's is masculine :crazy:

Ah, language :)

are really masculine, such as "el dia".

:evilgrin:

I can think of one English noun that has gender - a ship.

People may refer to a ship as "she", but the word itself is not gendered the way words in other languages are.

gender applies to the social attribution of a person, sex to the physical alone.

For instance, a pre-operative transsexual woman, living full-time as a woman has a female gender and male sex.

gender is the social aspect in humanity.

Male/female gender. Social identity, gender identity.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Gender... 2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/G0075900.html

I was asking biological identity.

If someone has a biological male identity, yet identifies as female (for instance), it's not really valid to consider them male for the question.

They don't consider themselves male, and don't (if they are living as women) approach their relationships from the point of view of a male. So, the gender is, IMO, much more a valid gauge of what you're aiming for here.

That is about sex. Not gender.

This poll may not be scientific, but it is interesting that the results defy the Dr. Phil horseshit stereotype so far.

the problem with that is that transgendered people may not be 'hardwired' in accordance with their genitalia, which may be part of the fact that they are transgendered.

I know this is going a bit off your topic, but I find that transgender studies tend to shed a bit of light on our assumptions about sex and gender.

My intent was to explore assumptions and discuss them. :)

I am female, polygamous, and usually straight. I dress like a man, I relate to men much more than I do to other women, but I have never wanted to be male. Would you say I'm transgender?

transgendered.

Ultimately, I think it'd be your choice whether you think you are.

My personal opinion would be that transgendered would be appropriate to you if you feel yourself either to be male-identified or non-identified (neither male nor female - and there are more and more non-gender identified, sometimes referred to as gender-queer - in the transgendered community).

I'm just a transvestite. I also like men who wear dresses.

Perhaps that's gender-queer, I'll have to think on it more.

I am a man and a polygamist.

But when I do, I am monogamous.

I may bang 10-20 chicks a week but always one at a time. No matter how much they beg, I'm a one-on-one guy.

:thumbsup:

...if I were a cartoon. :)

:-)

Isn't Mugen kinda ugly though?

Besides, I wanna watch when he and Jin resolve their obvious sexual tension.

:rofl: :rofl:

I didn't really notice any, but hey, whatever floats your boat! :-)

I'll try to remember to set the camera down so the footage isn't all jiggly like that tape of Spike and Vicious.

:(

That might help. :P

x(

because I've just realised that "nonogamous" would actually mean I have nine wives. :blush:

:rofl:

Anything else is FAR too complicated for me.

I'm not so hip to the idea of human monogamy as the most "natural" order of things... but you know what?

I have no desire for any woman other than my wife. She's all I want, all I need. It's just like something hit me, and I've got everything, and anybody else would just be overkill. I have a place where I belong.

So yeah -- I guess I'm monogamous. Who woulda thunk it? :shrug:

But - I'm not in a committed relationship at this time.

I practice monogamy if the man I'm dating is interested in doing the same.

My husband and I are both a little bi, and we have been known to 'hook up' with others (both same sex and opposite). Only when we're both present and consenting. And only with our close friends.

Probably too much info but I don't see the point in not being honest.

Edit to clarify.

It's more common than most people think. I certainly wouldn't call it mainstream, but my wife and I have never had anyone say no when asked.

It does seem to me that it's most common with bisexuals though, or at least in marriages with bisexual women. :shrug:

However, we've done a 3 way with another guy, before my husband would have ever considered interacting with a male. He would have done more, but I didn't have an interest. I'm with the one I'm with because he's the one I want. While I'm not opposed to being with another guy, I'm not looking and would do it primarily to fulfill a group fantasy. If I'm actively looking for a new partner, I'd prefer it to be with someone I'm curious about playing with.
Now that he's expressed some bi tendencies, we're experimenting with that. But it's hard to find anyone interested in anything but sex. We're a little old fashioned and prefer to know the person/people we're with and just meeting for sex and moving on isn't our style. And in Kansas it's especially hard to find a bi *guy*. Women are so socially acceptable but mention two guys together and all hell breaks loose. Hypocrisy is not fun.

it sounds like we're about the same here, and it's taken a lot of trust and communication to make it possible for us to have a relationship like we do. However, Lynz and I always come first (relationship wise, smart ass).

Just a tip to anyone considering being non-monogamous, if you can't be completely honest with one another about your feelings or motivations, don't do it! You'll only hurt one another.

I've been cheated on and that sucks. I could never cause that kind of pain to someone else.

Oh, I'm male.

It's usually too much trouble for me otherwise.

but I am monogamous.

The payoff--especially in terms of a happy relationship, and removing stress and conflict from my life--far outweighs the cost in discipline and suppression of my natural male sex drive.

I know there are plenty of people in happy, open relationships (and to anyone who might be living like that, more power to you), but in my own experience there has always been jealousy and strife involved, whether it was admitted to or not, whenever I have tried it.

My s.o. is way more than enough for me :D

And something one must supress to make an open relationship work.

Jealousy is caused by a sense of relative deprivation, or a fear of future deprivation. Most people are monogamous because they fear their S.O. will run off with someone else if they have sex with them. For many people, sex is so intertwined with love that they can't comprehend how the person they LOVE can have sex with other people without loving them as well.

There are, however, many people who are more uninhibited about sex. For those people, the concepts of sex and love aren't so intertwined, which allows them to permit their partners to have sex without concerning themselves with love and emotional attachment. To them, sex is sex, love is love, and the two have little to do with each other.

Where problems arise is when one partner has that detachment, and the other doesn't have it or has it to a lesser degree and goes along anyway.

It all comes down to the way you regard sex, and how comfortable and secure you are in your relationship.

I'm asking your opinion, 'cause I don't know.

Conventional "wisdom" states that women intertwine sex and love, and men do not. Do exceptions simply prove the rule? I'm just wondering aloud here.

Biologically there are certain territorial triggers in females that fire when they get pregnant. It's an instinctual response that goes back to the days when women relied on their mates to keep them alive during late pregnancy and right after birth. That instinctual response typically fades by the end of the babies first year.

The rest of it is cultural. There are plenty of cultures where monogamy is not only not the norm, but is a sign of failure. There's an island in the Pacific where the women regularly go man hunting in groups and "gang rape" any man they find alone. In the Arab world, polygamy is seen as not only acceptable, but a sign of success and wealth. In pre-Christian Europe, many of the societies practiced group sex. Heck, in Greece it was so common that we have STATUES of it.

Our interlinking of sex and love comes from the Christian foundation that most western culture is built on. Even if you aren't a Christian, you still live in a society where a thousand years worth of traditions and social practices were established in accordance with Christian teachings. Because Christianity promote monogamy, most historically Christian cultures have adopted it as well.

The linking comes from growing up watching movies where people have sex with the people they loved, being told as children to "save ourselves" for our partner, and from hearing our entire lives that cheating is bad and means that we don't love our partners. When you're exposed to that your entire life, and when every single person you know reinforces that belief, it becomes ingrained into your cultural worldview. Even if you're sexually promiscuous when you're single, the expectation gets set that love requires monogamy.

It's purely social.

there are also biological reasons for monogamy.( And for non-monogamy as well. ) There are many species where non-monogamy is considered genetically beneficial to females.

You make an interesting argument though.

At least inasmuch as serious relationships are concerned. On the other hand, I've had "friends with benefits" in the past, and that has never really been a problem...it's just that being in a serious, committed relationship, I feel compelled to stay faithfull...I don't know if it's a fear of abandonment or what, or just being selfish, or fear of diseases...or maybe some kind of self-willed, mutual sacrifice that makes the monogamous relationship more sacred? Meh. :shrug:

Anyway, I think that's a pretty good, concise explanation of where problems come into open relationships...where one person has a sense of detachment, but the other (or several of the others, as the case may be) doesn't...and especially when one or more people are just kidding themselves about how they feel, and trying to go along with a situation in which they are deeply, basically uncomfortable.

"and especially when one or more people are just kidding themselves about how they feel, and trying to go along with a situation in which they are deeply, basically uncomfortable."

Which is why, in a polyamorous relationship, it's all about honesty and communication, honesty and communication, so on and so forth. :)

no matter how many people, and no matter if it's sexual or not. IMHO, anyway.

but the more people involved, the more heightened the need for both of them become, imho, from experience :)

Love is an emotional state enhanced by sex....

Now I have always considered myself to not be monogamous but have rarely, but on occasion, acted upon that urge...

I agree that monogamy is not natural and was arrived at as a way to stabilize society... A chance for non alpha males to be a part of the gene pool, if you will....

well, if you want it to last anyway.

For me, right now, monogamy makes the most sense...it's funny, though, I've never really considered: what if I'm imposing that on the relationship? What if I'm just assuming that's really what my partner wants, because it is what I want? I guess finding that out would be a serious blow to my self-image (but, well, I'm not going to ask...)

Jeez, relationships are hard...but hey, we humans need one another.

I can't do polyamory in the true sense -- cultivating multiple romantic relationships, or falling in love with more than one person.

Physically, it's a little foggier. I'm (OK, at least theoretically) capable of no-strings encounters. If I wasn't in a relationship, I could do the casual thing. And I wouldn't be monogamous then, but I would be damn careful.

I couldn't do a true open relationship -- committed partners, but free to pursue physical relationships with others. I have a bit of "time jealousy," and I don't want to be home vacuuming or at work while my partner's getting it on with someone else (even if I had the option to do the same).

I don't know what would happen if an exactly-right situation presented itself. I'm not sure what that exactly-right situation would be, in any case.

Kissing strangers on New Years is fun.

I'm female.

And as my username implies, I'm female. :)

I'm not really one to play the field.

There's no justice, man. :(

:blush:

Although, at this point, I'm zero-ogamous. I am not currently part of any sort of ogamy. I am minus an ogamy! :grr:

That sucks, man. :(

monogamy
One entry found for monogamy.
Main Entry: mo·nog·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time <monogamy is common among birds>
- mo·nog·a·mous /m&-'nä-g&-m&s/ also mono·gam·ic /"mä-n&-'ga-mik/ adjective
- mo·nog·a·mous·ly adverb

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=monogamous

if i had any doubts, now i am certain that i am monogamous. :)

What's the deal? :shrug:

just glad to see the definition there. made it very clear to me. appreciate it. :) :hi:

You know some people don't realize the simple concept that is involved in being monogamous. You can't be married to one person and give your heart to another, even if you don't love the one you are married to.

Sadly, I must confess, I was in love with a married man once. He swore his love for me, he convinced me that his marriage was over and that it was a fraud from the start and that he never loved her. He had a child and when he left his wife and child for me, he was miserable. I couldn't stand it and I ended the relationship, sent him back home. I loved him too much to make him miserable without his child and I couldn't be a home wrecker. It was hard enough being the other woman, but to be a home wrecker, well, I didn't have it in me. Deep down I knew I couldn't trust him to be loyal to me. If he could do that to the woman he was married to and the mother of his child, he could do it to me, I brought less to the relationship.

Funny thing is, years later I saw him out one night with his new mistress. I had seen him seated at a table in a restaurant and went over to say hello and I asked him about his family. He made some flippant remark and blew me off. Later he saw me going to the restrooms and followed me. He apologized for his remark explaining that his girlfriend didn't know about his marriage and he preferred it that way. What is really amazing is how he asked if he could call me again and he went on about how much he missed me. Yep, I knew deep down I could never trust him.

It sounds like this guy understands the concept of monogamy perfectly, he just chooses to be dishonest about it. I'm glad you moved on.

I chose polygamy as a concept to embrace after the second or third time my first boyfriend raped and beat the shit out of me in a jealous rage.

I sure hope you dumped the first boyfriend.

12 years ago, he called me at work and told me he was watching me. I told him to bring it the fuck on, and haven't heard from him since.

:thumbsup: Glad you put that in the past.

It sounds like this guy understands the concept of monogamy perfectly, he just chooses to be dishonest about it. I'm glad you moved on.

I chose polygamy as a concept to embrace after the second or third time my first boyfriend raped and beat the shit out of me in a jealous rage. I had been monogamous until that day.

If a man's going to cheat on his wife ...

there's a pretty good chance that he'll cheat on his mistress too.


I'm glad you had the good sense to look out for yourself and send him packing.

:hi:

They're so damn charming. With cute lil' tricks to keep you off guard: I dated one married man (don't ask - it's a long story) who loved to get real serious and say "I have to tell you something." Then after my heart had dropped into the pit of my stomach he would smile and say "I Love You". I didn't find it very amusing!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they don't change. You always think you'll be the one that makes a different and in the end, he'll grow bored and move on to the next victim. At least I lasted longer than the girl who came after me!

"You know some people don't realize the simple concept that is involved in being monogamous. You can't be married to one person and give your heart to another, even if you don't love the one you are married to."

Why not? :shrug:

The one relationship or marriage is a commitment. If you become involved with another while in that relationship (before divorce) then you are not monogamous. You can't be, simply by the definition of the word. If you aren't happy in that commitment, get out before you foster another relationship. If you don't, then you are betraying the one you are committed to, even if that commitment is in name only.

And the funny damned thing about it is, it is a crime in most states, if a partner in a marriage has physical relations with someone outside the marriage they are breaking the law. Hell, in some states the person that the married person is having an affair with is also guilty of the crime. Yep, adultery is a crime in most states and a felony in several of states. One would not be afforded the defense to the crime, if charged, that they stopped loving their spouse and did not consider themselves in a relationship with him/her. It just wouldn't work.

So, by the simple definition of the term, you can't be married to one and give your heart to another and foster the other relationship and claim to be monogamous.

Of course, if you have no issue with betrayal or people that betray friends, lovers, spouses, et cetera, then that is cool. But those that betray should never lie to themselves or the public and claim to be monogamous - it is just silly and it proves that they are either ashamed of their behavior or think others around them are idiots.

And if they are telling untruths and half truths about this simple portion of themselves, you have to wonder how many lies have they told about other portions of themselves and about others.

There are plenty of things that are illegal in the eyes of the law, that make no sense whatsoever in personal relationships.

If two people are in a relationship that fails for whatever reason, and they are honest right away about that and the reasons for the failure... who should stand in judgement of them?

Is everyone who ever gets married or makes a commitment, who then later grows out of love with the person they made the commitment with wrong in your eyes? That's awfully harsh.

before they ended their involvement, long before the relationship has been officially called off, then the one that fostered and encouraged the third relationship should not claim that they are monogamous. It falls outside of the definition of the word.

You post a caveat that is interesting -- "honest right away". Was that person truly honest right away or did they stay in the relationship until something better came along and did they foster the something better until they had created another life to jump into? And, if that person choses to use the weaknesses of their "committed" other as an excuse to dump them, as their reason for "falling out of love", while knowing the whole time that they had been and were fostering their new found love, is that person not dishonest, not only to them self, but to their "committed" other?

And no, it is not wrong to fall our of love and end a commitment, it is wrong to foster another relationship while professing love for the committed partner. And it is wrong to place the blame on the partner and to claim you fell out of love with them because of their faults, when the truth is, you fell in love with another while you were committed.

Edited to Add: As for the legal definitions, I referenced the terms because this thread deals with the understanding of what it is to have a monogamous relationship and I thought it would help with the simple understanding of the definition and what it means to be monogamous.

about it. When I said "honest right away" I meant exactly that. What did you think I meant?

You are couching a lot of assumptions in your response to me. Sounds almost as if you are talking about a specific circumstance that is not the same as the one I am referencing or if it is, is completely misrepresented.

Peace... we should all understand that relationships are complicated. I prefer to leave my judgement out of other peoples' lives, especially when I know only one version of the truth.

peoples' lives, one would think that you would not encourage or condone the efforts of others to a smear someone not involved.

I, too, believe that most relationships are complicated, but some are more transparent than you think, especially those nutured on the internet. They have a trail.

And again, I find it fascinating that you read so much into my post. I made no assumptions, I simply asked questions, posted hypotheticals if you will. One wonders if some of the contents of my post hit home in some way. That you appear to have personalized the contents speaks volumes.

If you wish to discuss something in depth, you know how to privately reach me.

and have never myself been a part of one (except I suppose on the receiving end), though I am quite positive you have yourself partaken.

Unfortunately, the trail you insinuate is left on the internet assumes that every detail of every relationship is exposed there as well, which of course you know could not possibly be true.

I find it fascinating that you would find it fascinating that I would read something into your post, when it was quite obviously personal.

You have made them personal, read more in to them than what is there.

I have not been a part of any smear campaign, I have been the recipient of messages that were meant to smear and have rebuked them and advised the smearer that they were guilty of what they accused others of doing. That you assume that I have taken part in such campaigns clearly reflects your doing what you have previously accused me of doing, judging only knowing one version of the truth.

glad I wasn't part of it. And glad this wasn't personal. Thanks.

I simply responded to another and you continue the dialog. Unfortunately, you were made a part of the intrigue and the smear attempts by those associated with you. I really thought that they provided you with all of the communications as I had encouraged the party to do. If not, you may want to inquire of the same. Should you wish to pursue this further and remove the personal issues you have created to a private forum, you know how to reach me.

Where I already expressed my gratitude that this is not personal. :shrug:

:hi:

Now I'll have to rethink my position.

Thanks for the opportunity for such agonizing reappraisal.

:shrug:

:spank:

Better luck next time.

I know damn well you only wanted a spanking, you little freak.

...I fucked up two marriages previously because of my screwing around. I'm happily married for the third time now, with no desire to be with anyone but my wife.

:evilgrin:

:cry:



:P

At least once every two days.

And I'm always there when I need me. I can also tell myself to shut the fuck up, if necessary.

Rechargeable, too. ;)

my wife is my soulmate...

Heck, one night stands are not appealing to me anymore...I just need serial monogomy.

I'm also not relationship-interested either. I think if I were at a point where I was open to a relationship, I possibly would be monogamous if it were important to them.

Casual sex didn't really work for me. I have been in love with a couple people at a time, but I think that I would have had a hard time if I had actual sexual/romantic relationships with both of them. For one the thing, there is the whole issue of them being alright with it and them getting along and that is just too complicated.
I am better off being married to my husband and only having sex with him. Everyone else who I care about is a friend and will stay that way.

But alas...no ladyfriend.

I certainly can't claim to have had only one love in a lifetime. But when I'm in love, I'm a one man woman.

My wife is my one and only for 32 years.
She is truly my best Friend.

More than one is hard work.

'barney style' :spank:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hi: :thumbsup: :bounce:

:spray:

Believe me bridgit, I'm a one woman man!

that are easy to play into the "what the definition of 'is' is..." :shrug:

:rofl:

...no woman has stripped her clothes off in front of me and said "take me now!" Maybe that will happen tomorrow.

If you make a committment to be monogamous...why aren't you honoring that trust?

If you would like to answer your own essay question, feel free. I will not, because it doesn't apply to my current situation.

Redstone

The females just don't quite seem to grasp that I belong to the same species they do. :(

Oh, and Robb is a dingbat.

edit: my keyboard hates double t's

...that monogamous til-death-do-you-part thing has never made emotional sense to me. I just don't fundamentally, at a gut level, grasp why anyone would ever think promising that was a good idea! I wouldn't want to do it, and I wouldn't want to ask it of anyone else.

But I can certainly stick with only one person for extended periods of time if I have to...my partner and I have been monogamous by default for years (although, TMI maybe, we have had threesomes with close mutual friends in the past); one thing that helps it work is that it's always open to negotiation, and he knows I'm not going to get all irrational on him if he confesses to being attracted to someone, and I can trust him to hear my truths too.

It helps us both to know the rules: sleeping with someone else behind the other person's back will never ever be OK, but talking about it and seeing if an "arrangement" is possible IS an option that's open to us. We've both been in both exclusive and open relationships with others before we hooked up, so we've come to this way of thinking by a lot of painful trial and error.

I'm female, BTW; my partner and I are both in our 30s.

I have everything in your post in common with you except for the TMI bit.

My partner and I have a "tell only if asked" arrangement, which may be more TMI.

waaay back, when i was a wee lass, and it soooo didn't work for me...i'm too nosy, gotta know everything!! :P

i'm glad yours is working for you though :)

one woman (at a time) man.

You should use a more environmentally responsible building materials.

:eyes:

:loveya:

I love the whole world, and everyone and everything in it. And I intend to make love to the whole world, and everyone and everything in it.


brb

Hope you remember to drink plenty of water.

that I've met someone really wonderful.