# Monogamish



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

https://www.yahoo.com/health/should-we-all-be-in-monogamish-relationships-109895587302.html

Ah, hell, I'm game ...

I remember thinking at age 15 that I had met my match for life.

Nearly 35 years later, I can say with confidence;

"Not so much."

I don't even much care for the term of 'failed relationship' any more.
Is it really a failure if both individuals come to recognize that they do not, or cannot meet each others needs?

Wouldn't it actually be a failure if they couldn't, or didn't come to that realization?

I do think that we should honor and value our commitments. I also believe that we should think differently about how and to whom we choose to make those commitments.

That said, at my core I'm a monogamous man trying to get by in a non-monogamous world.

But I absolutely recognize that it is an extraordinarily tall order to expect one person to meet ALL of the emotional and physical needs of another.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I don't know CH.

I can tell you with certainty that the sex that I was having when I was 25 and I thought couldn't get any better, doesn't hold a candle to the sex I've had into my 40's.

I do think that you need a high degree of synergy between both the emotional and sexual to even have a hope of preserving and growing, a healthy, loving, long term relationship.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Personal said:


> I think being 'monogamish' is perfectly fine, just as long as all are and remain informed.


Well, it relies on the same cornerstone of honesty and transparency that we prescribe to monogamous relationships.
I think where it gets complex is being in a monogamous relationship and putting honesty and transparency to the test, when doing so means confiding to your partner that you no longer are feeling the emotional and sexual synergy that brought you together in the first place.

Being able to say the thing that you believe will threaten the relationship, may be the thing that needs to be said in order to save it.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I had a lot of women by the time I was 20 and a lot of the sex was pretty damn good.

Been with Mrs. Conan since and sex does keep getting better, also in forties now.

Absolutely agree about saying hard things and being willing to lose the relationship to improve it. We have had many hard truth talks to thrive after over two decades.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Emotional? Maybe not feasible. Sexual? Absolutely feasible.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It is possible to be in a place where emotional exclusivity is neither necessary nor even desirable.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*When you're in your early 20's, get that college degree in your hand, successfully knock-off a few prime pieces of college coed; you absolutely think that the world is your oyster and that you're preeminently entitled to gain instantaneous admission to Harvard Law, or be named CEO of some major corporation; and that, sexually speaking, you are greatly entitled to push Christie Brinkley into bed with you ~ when in fact, you still don't know jack about a damned thing!

Yes, the sex back then was good, or so I thought at the time! But it preeminently gets better with age. Like Deejo said, a lot of us have the jaded perception that who we fall in love with for the very first time is the one who's going to be there for us when they shovel that first spadefull of dirt onto our coffin! For some, it works out that way, but for the vast majority it does not.

But when we finally hook up with Mrs. Right, the sex is usually, off the bat, as being somewhat in the neighborhood of being exhilerating, primarily due to the occasional bouts of it that we received premaritally.

I still stand by my expectations that sex with the woman that you commit yourself to and choose to marry should start out in the "drive" gear, and with age and experience, should greatly elevate itself all the way up to "high-overdrive" ~ making use of the old mantra, "Baby, you're not getting older, you're getting better! At least that's my skewed perception ~ but I still firmly believe in it!

But it's just too damned bad that things like deception, infidelity and adultery can have a profound effect on those lifelong expectations!*


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Well, it relies on the same cornerstone of *honesty and transparency *that we prescribe to monogamous relationships.
> I think where it gets complex is being in a monogamous relationship and putting honesty and transparency to the test, when doing so means confiding to your partner that you no longer are feeling the emotional and sexual synergy that brought you together in the first place.
> 
> *Being able to say the thing that you believe will threaten the relationship, may be the thing that needs to be said in order to save it.*


I think any time we say what we sincerely feel in our heart, we risk rejection. We risk seeing what the other person truly is inside, not what we believe them to be.

A defensive and aggressive response is heartbreaking. But surely the wisest thing to do is to accept that is who they are, and act accordingly. "When someone shows you who they are . . . believe them."


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

> [From the article:] Messina ... writes, “I’m in a monogamish relationship. We’re committed to each other, but have a porous boundary around our relationship, meaning we’ve agreed that it’s OK for either of us to express romantic feelings toward other people or to be physically intimate with other people, so long as we’re honest and transparent about our intentions with one another. These things don’t diminish the integrity of our relationship. Rather, they deepen our understanding of each other’s wants and desires, and give us the space to grow independently, without growing apart.”


This is very close to what we've said and practiced for the past 15 years.


----------



## changedbeliefs (Jun 13, 2014)

Little different version of the same:

Chris Messina: Why I choose non-monogamy - Jan. 29, 2015

Lots of thought-provoking ideas in that article. I'll drop a few here:



> So why non-monogamy now? Well, people haven't changed much, but their environment has. Just think: Monogamy established itself thousands of years ago, when society was ruled by scarcity and resources and potential mates were in limited supply. We're now living in a period of great (though unequally distributed) abundance where our basic needs are sufficiently met, and reproduction is a choice. As a result, the reasons to be with a single mate for life are less urgent.





> Like most of my generation, I grew up spoon fed monogamist fairy tales that pushed "happily ever after" endings as though achieving one was preordained. It was like, once you found "the one" and stepped on to the relationship escalator, all the answers became clear -- so long as you kept your eyes on the prize and didn't stray (wait, what was the prize again?). You could spend your whole life living out this fantasy, blissfully ignorant that any other way might be possible, let alone desirable.


A lot of revolves around my favorite phrase, that I am really starting to take to heart: critical thinking. It's about taking what you're told and just assuming it's right, never REALLY stopping to think, "is this true, and/or is it right for me, and how do I go about deciding if it is?" I think it's safe to say (again, very much like religion), children get a message at a young age, you're supposed to find someone and get married, and that's the pinnacle of achievement. I have personally seen on Facebook, more than once, where someone commented on a dating/engagement announcement, "you deserve to be happy!" What, someone can't be happy unless you've hitched onto someone? It's a rabbit hole of a discussion.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I have said frequently, that I find it unfortunate that the common marital dynamic is that love is front loaded. You start off on this high of discovery, connection, joy and bonding; and it's like buying a car. It's value begins to depreciate the moment you get behind the wheel and drive off.

Wouldn't it be something if the standard were that we fell more in love the longer we were together rather than having love diminish and fade away over time?

I have to confess that post-divorce I've grown very accustomed to, and comfortable with being single.

I like the idea of having someone special in my life, but I most certainly don't function under the belief that I'm looking for a life partner. I'm just looking for the right partner.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Wouldn't it be something if the standard were that we fell more in love the longer we were together rather than having love diminish and fade away over time?


It may not be the standard, but this is what has happened for us: we have fallen more in love the longer we're together. For us, I think that engaging in ethical non-monogamy has been a help.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Deejo said:


> I like the idea of having someone special in my life, but I most certainly don't function under the belief that I'm looking for a life partner. I'm just looking for the right partner.


You are at a different point in your life than you were 15 or 20 years ago. You are not looking to have children, for example. Everything probably just seems much more flexible.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

WHOOOPS!!! That's what I get for posting half asleep. I misread the OP and, I believe, misrepresented myself in my first response which I have deleted. 

Emotions ebb and flow through the years but love is an action that can build up, or grow up, much larger than it starts out. That is definitely the case with Mrs. Conan and I.

Sexual monogamy is easy. Work it and improve it. Emotional monogamy has proven a little trickier to navigate but very doable. I appreciate the love and admiration of many men and women as well as giving them my love and admiration.

There is an intimate level of my emotional spectrum I reserve for Mrs. Conan. To be honest, our emotional boundaries are not identical. There are parts of herself she shares with others that I hold back exclusively for her and vice versa but there is an overlapping core between us that is exclusive and mutually agreed to and satisfying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr.Fisty (Nov 4, 2014)

Depends on the people involved, and the random occurrences of life. I view things from a more biological side. I read about a couple who were happily married for ten years. They are allowed to sleep with other people for two weeks out of the year when he is gone on business. He fell in love with someone else, and they divorced. They are friends to this day. The husband in that case found someone who possess all the things his wife possess to a higher degree. He let his guard down, and voila. Attachments, love, and lust are connected to the reward center, and if someone ends up fulfilling you more, you will find it more rewarding to be with them. So you love them more.

I was in an open relationship in college, and she left me for another person, but she had a stronger bond with the other guy. There are risk involved, and so is regular marriage as well. Nothing is really safe, and no one really knows what life will throw at them. To be honest though, there is more cheating in open marriages than I thought there would be. I have seen people have affairs until the high wears out, and recommits to the original relationship. This is done under the guise of honesty, although, it is not as bad as under strict monogamy. There is cheating, just to a lesser degree. Sometimes, one or both couples gets infatuated with their partner, and covertly continue the rendezvous until the high wears out. I seen it happen to swingers when I was part of the poly crowd.

Including, most people cannot handle the lifestyle. Most people form an attachment from sex alone. Oxytocin is released during orgasms, and touching, kissing, releases more of the hormone. Most of it wears out over a short period, especially when sleeping with strangers, but research has also shown prostitutes falling in love from the sex alone. The love could take a few days, weeks, or months to wear out. Love at first sight is a real outcome.

I simply make my life fulfilling so whether I am alone or not, I will be fine. I do not have faith in people. If things work out then great, if not, then detach and move on. I might end up in an open relationship again someday, it will remain to be seen.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

You have experienced a lot already in life, MF. And you are open and honest and not defensive about it at all. I am impressed.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Mr.Fisty said:


> Depends on the people involved, and the random occurrences of life. I view things from a more biological side. I read about a couple who were happily married for ten years. They are allowed to sleep with other people for two weeks out of the year when he is gone on business. He fell in love with someone else, and they divorced. They are friends to this day. The husband in that case found someone who possess all the things his wife possess to a higher degree. He let his guard down, and voila. Attachments, love, and lust are connected to the reward center, and if someone ends up fulfilling you more, you will find it more rewarding to be with them. So you love them more.


This can happen, of course. I would say that their arrangement left a lot to be desired, and perhaps the limitations in place were partly responsible for the outcome. We're more poly oriented, so would just invite the person into our existing relationship, and would likely do so even if they had all the same desirable traits but to a somewhat lesser degree.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Deejo said:


> But I absolutely recognize that it is an extraordinarily tall order to expect one person to meet ALL of the emotional and physical needs of another.


I think the bigger issues is that we increasingly seem to be confusing "wants" with "needs".


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

The trouble with monogamy is that when we undertake that promise, we have no idea who we will become in 10, 29, 30 years. The emotional needs of a 20 years old are prioritized very differently that those of a 50 year old.

The trouble with monogamishness is that it is impossible to control feelings once they've been explored, or allowed to come out to play. I can't imagine meeting a man, finding him attractive and wanting to begin a sexual relationship with him, without having all those tingling feelings new love brings. 

Over the course of my marriage I have found myself very attracted to other men from time to time. This shocked me and made me think (the first time it happened) that there was something wrong with my marriage, or wrong with me. I kept my distance and the attraction receded. Being attracted to someone doesn't mean it will be reciprocated so I just told myself he couldn't possibly be attracted to me, I'm making a fool of myself.

However, had I explored the feelings those attractions prompted, I can't believe that my monogamish marriage would still be connected today. Some people are just not able to have romantic love for more than one person at a time and I'm pretty sure I'm one of them. Though I've never tried this.

From the link ...


> *Perel notes in her talk that contemporary monogamy is under a great deal of pressure, as partners come into the relationship asking one another “to give …what once an entire village used to provide: Give me belonging, give me identity, give me continuity, but give me transcendence and mystery and awe all in one. Give me comfort, give me edge. Give me novelty, give me familiarity. Give me predictability, give me surprise. And we think it’s a given.”
> 
> Furthermore, Perel points to the “paradox between love and desire” — that is “that the very ingredients that nurture love — mutuality, reciprocity, protection, worry, responsibility for the other — are sometimes the very ingredients that stifle desire.”*


I think marriages can survive monogamously, but only if honesty and transparency are practiced by both partners and there is a commitment to meet one another's needs, no matter how they change during the course of a life time.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

jaquen said:


> I think the bigger issues is that we increasingly seem to be confusing "wants" with "needs".


I disagree entirely. Romantic love and desire require a different skill set than maintaining monogamy. This is why so many marriages are sexless. Being committed to each other can stifle the ability to create desire for each other.


----------



## southern wife (Jul 22, 2011)

Deejo said:


> I can tell you with certainty that the sex that I was having when I was 25 and I thought couldn't get any better, doesn't hold a candle to the sex I've had into my 40's.


:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: 

I am so much more in tune with my body and it's cravings in my early 40s. 

In my 30s, I mostly shut down my sexual self due to not being sexually compatible with my STBXH. I hate I did that, but I can't go back and change it. 

Sex now is so much better with someone that is in tune with the needs of my body and more compatible with me.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Deejo said:


> I don't even much care for the term of 'failed relationship' any more.
> Is it really a failure if both individuals come to recognize that they do not, or cannot meet each others needs?


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> I disagree entirely. Romantic love and desire require a different skill set than maintaining monogamy. This is why so many marriages are sexless. Being committed to each other can stifle the ability to create desire for each other.



I agree.

Which is why I'm baffled as to what you're disagreeing with in my post. Which has nothing to do with the issues you just brought up.

My post was in reference to the notion that our partners can or should be expected to fulfill all our "needs". But modern marriages, in the west at least, are often plagued by an increasing tendency to categorize "wants" as "needs". People throw away wonderful partners because of some delusional desire that everything they want equals a need. This can put enormous pressure on even the best partners, causing resentment on the part of both.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The linked article is very interesting, too. It's about millenials, but closely matches the way we think about relationships (even though we're 50's/60). It's food for thought, and perhaps your children are thinking this way if you have 20-something kids.

Millennials and Sex: A New Take on Dating, Marriage and Monogamy | Rolling Stone


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

*Excerpts from the article:*



> “I’m in a monogamish relationship. We’re committed to each other, but have a porous boundary around our relationship, meaning we’ve agreed that it’s OK for either of us to express romantic feelings toward other people or to be physically intimate with other people, so long as we’re honest and transparent about our intentions with one another. These things don’t diminish the integrity of our relationship. Rather, they deepen our understanding of each other’s wants and desires, and give us the space to grow independently, without growing apart.”..*Sheff herself is in a polyamorous relationship and was shocked to discover that she was not jealous when her partner had sex with other people. *“I resisted it for 10 years because I anticipated feeling so threatened and jealous *with my insecurity* that I thought I would not be able to handle it,” she says.


I really don't care for them calling this *Insecurity*. I suppose if one is led /taught to believe Monogamy is now a pipe -dream, unattainable for 75% of the population (or whatever they might say).... there will be rationalizations to allow for non -monogamous relationships ... that this is the new thing, the way to go.. 

How unfortunate.. Just rip our sensitive natures out ...It seems to me our world has grown ever less empathetic towards each other...is it not due to our new modern 'sex is just sex" sexual views.. at least a little..

Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy? * Hooking Up Smart  

.. so NOW we can share with 2, 3, 4 others the deepest parts of ourselves..at the same time yet !... what's down the road... heck people have a hard enough time doing this with ONE Soul.. it's one of the greatest hindrances in marriage even... the fear some have of being vulnerable with each other... they have emotional walls... now we're suggesting we share with more!! I guess I see this as only masking the same problems that lead to people not connecting to begin with, then not feeling fulfilled in their relationships... adding more will still not fill that VOID.. 

If this is considered Insecurity...those with the deepest capacity to love and commit, to cherish one special person for a lifetime.. who have found such contentment...they would be the insecure among us.. 

Is this right ??

Personally... I would have little interest in calling something a relationship if I didn't feel hotly desired and ENOUGH for the man.. and if I couldn't give him exclusivity in return, because that's important to me too... as well as him.. it's just 

Talk about a watering down of relationships.. I can't see it any other way. 



> Messina argues that there is no need for such feelings to come into play in what he refers to as the era of “Big Dating.” He claims that “Big Dating unbundles monogamy and sex. It offers to maximize episodes of intimacy while minimizing the risk of rejection or FOMO [fear of missing out]” and that “*Big Dating precipitates the rising ambivalence toward commitment,” proving that “that there’s now more than one option for building meaningful and satisfying relationships.” Messina goes so far as to argue that the new non-monogamy has the potential to revolutionize the modern world in much the same way that computers have, and that technology — and the advent of “hook-up” apps such as Tinder — are the key to such a revolution*.


 Yes.. the hooking up culture, for so many of our young people.. this has even replaced dating...

More & more studies are being done on it's effects.. it's not all good.. though like anything else.. there are 2 camps on this. Those who praise it, all engrossing empowering & the like..& those who would like to get back to more older fashioned ideals about exclusive love & the beauty of monogamy..when it is right...



> *Why is monogamy considered to be so hard?*
> 
> “Ultimately, a difficulty in maintaining monogamous relationships is that people differ in how often they want to have sex, how much variety they want in sex partners, and in the level of emotional intimacy they need to want to have sex,” comments Markman, “These aspects differ for both men and women. They also differ within a person at different times of life and in different circumstances. So, what a person wants at 20 may be different than what that person wants at 30, 50, or 70. The idea that there is a one-size-fits-all format for relationships misses the complexity of human relationships. That is as true for monogamy as it is for non-monogamy.”


 Why is it so hard.. I don't think any of us hit the Lottery (as it's been said of myself & H... it's just that too often people are not compatible.. .. but missed the red flags, or a couple was not self aware ENOUGH, not vulnerable / transparent ENOUGH (too many games if you will!) when they did meet...communication breakdown -never got down to their souls in what makes them TICK.. or Storms comes (difficulties with children, financial problems, Over loaded work schedules...and on it goes...Oh the things we invite into our lives that didn't have to be.. & sometimes life is just cruel to no fault of our own).... there are no easy answers here, some grow weary, depressed, addictions enter in.. but if we're that messed up.. who is to say we'd do any better with another. 

Myself & H got through His years when he wanted more -but never wavered in his Just wanting his wife.. ..and likewise MY years of wanting MORE from him sexually. where he did all he could but I caused some turmoil over it anyway..those Insatiable months...we gave each other grace...For us both.. *They weren't NEEDS.. but WANTS.*. .. . which surly made it easier to not look over any fences. 



> The renowned psychotherapist Esther Perel, a professor at both New York University and Columbia University in New York, continuously addresses such issues in her work, including her now seminal book *Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence. *In her TED Talk “The Secret To Desire In A Long-Term Relationship,” Perel asks the question at the core of all discussion of non-monogamy, that is: “*Can we want what we already have?”*


 I bought this book for pure curiosity yrs ago.... I remember reading parts of this feeling..."this just isn't true of us"... One *can be* very close, best friends and still be head over heels for each other..sure things ebb & flow, just like infertility & baby after baby after baby was an "ebbing" in our lives.. but it sure flowed in Mid life ! 

This article is my rebuttal ... 

Brain Study Reveals Secrets of Staying Madly in Love
What brain scans teach us about intense long-term passionate love .. it's another view that YES.. what she says is NOT universal.. it depends on the couple. 



> Perel notes in her talk that contemporary monogamy is under a great deal of pressure, as partners come into the relationship asking one another “to give …what once an entire village used to provide: Give me belonging, give me identity, give me continuity, but give me transcendence and mystery and awe all in one. Give me comfort, give me edge. Give me novelty, give me familiarity. Give me predictability, give me surprise. And we think it’s a given.”


 In our relationship, he is probably the more GIVING ....(I've gotten better here) where I provide the "shaking it up" aspect.. (gotten better here too).. always something we can grow in... so if a couple works together...they can have it all ...



> Furthermore, Perel points to the “paradox between love and desire” — that is “that the very ingredients that nurture love — mutuality, reciprocity, protection, worry, responsibility for the other — are sometimes the very ingredients that stifle desire.”


 How much stifling is she meaning here.. if she means beyond this ebb and flowing , depending on what is going on in our lives, I would argue none of this is a problem.. if a couple chooses to have lots of closeness - if that works for them.. It's good.

If a couple would rather have more Cave time/ time away -if THIS keeps their desire *a little hotter*.. that's good too -it will certainly help if they're on the same page in this as well.. 



> *A happy relationship is about commitment.
> *
> Perel concludes that maintaining an erotic connection in a relationship has nothing to do with monogamy or non-monogamy, but rather with a deeper understanding of the concept of commitment. Successful relationships of any length are committed.
> 
> ...


 I like the ending anyway... :smthumbup:


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I agree SA. I don't usually feel like stating academia but every society that has ever fully embraced non monogamous or homosexual relationships as the norm have vanished.

These behaviors have and presumably always will be around but when the majority practice and normalize them, decline soon follows.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

As much trouble as I have managing one romantic/sexual relationship, I suspect I'd be a hopeless failure at maintaining two or more. 

So monogamy it is.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Monogamish - 

Well as long as it's all about you you you you....I guess everything is alright.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

What's the state of being monogamish? Monogamishy?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> What's the state of being monogamish? Monogamishy?


Monogamushy, I think.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

:rofl:

Monogamanians


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> I agree SA. I don't usually feel like stating academia but every society that has ever fully embraced non monogamous or homosexual relationships as the norm have vanished.
> 
> These behaviors have and presumably always will be around but when the majority practice and normalize them, decline soon follows.


We humans are pretty young on this planet. Maybe monogamy is what's going to wipe us out like how the dinosaurs vanished one day...?


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

jaquen said:


> I agree.
> 
> Which is why I'm baffled as to what you're disagreeing with in my post. Which has nothing to do with the issues you just brought up.
> 
> My post was in reference to the notion that our partners can or should be expected to fulfill all our "needs". But modern marriages, in the west at least, are often plagued by an increasing tendency to categorize "wants" as "needs". People throw away wonderful partners because of some delusional desire that everything they want equals a need. This can put enormous pressure on even the best partners, causing resentment on the part of both.


Perhaps I misread your post. What it sounded like, to me, is that you were minimizing needs by deeming them mere wants. 

Take Doobie for instance. Her husband has extremely poor hygiene and she really wants him to be clean so that she can feel attracted to him and not be embarrassed by him. Is his hygiene a want or a need for her?

How about the husband whose wife has gained over 100 pounds since they got married and he is no longer attracted to her. He wants her to loose weight so that she is both healthy and attractive to him.

Are those wants or needs and who gets to decide which ones are important enough to be needs and which ones are not and can be written off as mere wants?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

jaquen said:


> My post was in reference to the notion that our partners can or should be expected to fulfill all our "needs". But modern marriages, in the west at least, are often plagued by an increasing tendency to categorize "wants" as "needs". People throw away wonderful partners because of some delusional desire that everything they want equals a need. This can put enormous pressure on even the best partners, causing resentment on the part of both.


Yes. Unrealistic expectations destroys a lot of potential sucessful marriages. Maybe it's a learning curve for us to see reality rather than love stories we've watched on the big screen. IMO there are a lot of divorced couples where the one who wasn't happy and left looks back later on realizing that the problems they had in the marriage follow them into relationship after relationship.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> We humans are pretty young on this planet. Maybe monogamy is what's going to wipe us out like how the dinosaurs vanished one day...?


Well I think that would wipe out monogomous homosapiens and the non-monogomous homosapien would take over .


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> Well I think that would wipe out monogomous homosapiens and the non-monogomous homosapien would take over .


And the promiscuous shall inherit the earth.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Dawn of the Planet of the Non-Monogamishy ****-Sapiens.

Rated R.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> And the promiscuous shall inherit the earth.


And they shall populate vigorously.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

lol how is it possible to be monogomish?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> We humans are pretty young on this planet. Maybe monogamy is what's going to wipe us out like how the dinosaurs vanished one day...?


That is one theory. &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

TiggyBlue said:


> lol how is it possible to be monogomish?


The Underwood ' s from House of Cards have a perfect illustration of a monogamish relationship.

They love, support, and anchor one another. But, they each can and do, occasionally become discretely, physically involved with others, wherein both are fully aware of what the other spouse is doing.

I'm not prepared to say that Frank and Claire Underwood represent a couple to be emulated. But they sure are fun to watch.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Anon Pink said:


> Perhaps I misread your post. What it sounded like, to me, is that you were minimizing needs by deeming them mere wants.
> 
> *Take Doobie for instance. Her husband has extremely poor hygiene and she really wants him to be clean so that she can feel attracted to him and not be embarrassed by him. Is his hygiene a want or a need for her?*


 I didn't read that post.. but my feelings are..If he is well bodied ..what excuse is there for this...most definitely a REASONABLE NEED..... what a woman should do.. refuse the intimacy if he stinks...(surely the man will wise up!)..well unless he is low drive I guess, then there's another issue.... .there needs to be some caring to meet the other half way... without attitude....or you're just being obstinate....



> *How about the husband whose wife has gained over 100 pounds since they got married and he is no longer attracted to her. He wants her to loose weight so that she is both healthy and attractive to him.*


 I'd consider this a *NEED* also....after all...there is a chapter on it in "*His Needs , Her Needs*".. entitled '*Physical attractiveness*"..some care deeply about such things, where another may not be so bothered.. Marry someone who doesn't care then and has it on the bottom of the list. If however you didn't marry THAT person, then you need to care ...it's an emotional need for THEM....

Just like some men are content supporting a wife & kids with his income as the sole breadwinner...but another would grow to resent a woman NOT working, he EXPECTS her "*financial contribution"* in this day & age for HIS happiness.. also a chapter for this.. generally more of a NEED of the woman, but a man can have it too - just as some of us CARE a great deal our husband's won't go gaining 50 some lbs after we walk down the aisle. 

Know what is important and expected from your spouse ...and do all you can to walk in it.. *Effort *goes a long way.. when the other feels there is a wall up, no effort exerted.. being pushed aside, said to "deal with it".. this is when it all goes to hell.. and looking over the fence becomes mighty tempting...

Or a man may feel sexual variety, regular bJ's, 69, some role play is a sexual CRAVING of his..called "sexual fulfillment" in the book.... if a woman is married to THAT MAN.. .. she really NEEDS to meet him half way.. and work to aid some variety & spice... or they are just not compatible ...if he is struggling to lay that down, she needs to work on picking it up some...otherwise, it would be best if they ended it...instead of them both growing resentment over it....


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> And they shall populate vigorously.


And promote healthy genetic diversity. Amen.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> Perhaps I misread your post. What it sounded like, to me, is that you were minimizing needs by deeming them mere wants.


Obviously you don't know me personally, but if you did you'd see how funny this is. 



Anon Pink said:


> Are those wants or needs and who gets to decide which ones are important enough to be needs and which ones are not and can be written off as mere wants?


We all get to decide what constitutes as "need" to us.

But if you've got a long, exhaustive list of "needs" that reads more like a wishlist from a Vogue article, you might be off track. Or setting yourself up for perpetual disappointment.

If you have a partner who loves you, is sexually into you, respects you, supports you, upholds their vows, is a good parent and puts the family first, and yet you have decided that you "need" to have somebody who cooks gourmet meals, has a 10% body fat level and is interested in all the same hobbies you are, yeah, I think such a person might want to check their priorities.

Wants are great. I'm a firm believer in wants. But if wants and needs become synonymous, a person can't be surprised if they find themselves perpetually disappointed. Lots of people have made the mistake of thinking their partner must be EVERYTHING to them.

No person can be EVERYTHING to you.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

jaquen said:


> If you have a partner who loves you, is sexually into you, respects you, supports you, upholds their vows, is a good parent and puts the family first, and yet you have decided that you "need" to have somebody who cooks gourmet meals, has a 10% body fat level and is interested in all the same hobbies you are, yeah, I think such a person might want to check their priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> No person can be EVERYTHING to you.


You are minimizing. Using exaggeration as a tool to deflect a need for the spouse to put some effort into their relationship.

My husband loves me, supports me, upholds his vows, is a good parent and puts the family first. And yet it has been many years since I have felt loved by him and was fully ready to walk out the door.

I wasn't asking for 10% body fat but I was demanding he drop 40 pounds and get in shape, cause if I'm going to be a widow lets get this **** started while I'm young enough and hot enough to find a new husband.

I wasn't asking for gourmet meals but I was asking him to put some effort into the meals he does prepare.

I wasn't asking him to enjoy the hobbies I enjoy, but I was expecting him to find hobbies that he enjoyed and not sit in front of the TV for every down time minute. I was expecting him to get involved with life and pursue recreation and male companionship.

I wanted a spouse who could make me feel loved and was passionate about life. Wants, needs, doesn't really matter. I drew the line in the sand and he has stepped up recently, again. So we'll see.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Deejo said:


> I'm a monogamous man trying to get by in a non-monogamous world


Winner of the prestigious Internet Quote of the Day.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> You are minimizing. Using exaggeration as a tool to deflect a need for the spouse to put some effort into their relationship.
> 
> My husband loves me, supports me, upholds his vows, is a good parent and puts the family first. And yet it has been many years since I have felt loved by him and was fully ready to walk out the door.
> 
> ...


You're making a lot of false assumptions on my view based off almost no evidence. Not sure what you're reading into my posts, from the very first one you quoted, but our communication is VERY off in this thread. I literally have no idea how you're reaching the conclusions you are.

Anybody who's posted here with me regularly knows that the issue you're having with your husband is something I take very seriously and support as a valid need. You're absolutely preaching to the choir on that one. If you need further proof just head on over to the "Wife is getting REALLY fat" thread.

And the male companionship and having a vital, independent life? Yeah, VERY vocal about that on TAM.

So there's not much more I can say here.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

So we're reinventing _Mariage de Blanc_?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Anon Pink said:


> You are minimizing. Using exaggeration as a tool to deflect a need for the spouse to put some effort into their relationship.
> 
> My husband loves me, supports me, upholds his vows, is a good parent and puts the family first. *And yet it has been many years since I have felt loved by him and was fully ready to walk out the door.*
> 
> ...


Just saying.. I think ALL you have said is completely *reasonable* and the vast majority of women would have felt and struggled as you have in this.. so happy he is finally coming around for you !! 

It's hard to outline and draw specific lines in these things on a forum.. I have read a # of jaquen's posts.. . I know there are certain things he would not put up with -with a woman, he'd be out of there.. where maybe another guy could tolerate it.. and that is not saying anything bad about him at all.. we all have certain areas!

I know in my own marriage, I am HARDER to please over my H... no doubt about it, he'd have patience for some things I would raise the roof off the house about... I think it's good that we're not all alike!!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I think where things get even more complex, and AP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think she would describe her husband as a 'bad man'. Quite the opposite.

My ex ... don't hate her. Don't have the attitude of 'WTF was I thinking marrying that woman?'

We were absolutely fantastic at getting along and parenting.

And there the list ended.

Don't think it makes anyone wrong, or weak, or evil.

What it does mean, at the end of the day is painfully simple.

You didn't or couldn't do the work to make the marriage successful while paired.

Or you flat out were never all that compatible in the first place.

I'm excluding blatant acts of evil wherein one spouse or ex-spouse is never going to be content short of utterly destroying the hopes, dreams and life of the other. The mission isn't to heal and move on. It's vengeance, pay-back, or deciding that angry and bitter feels better than hopeless and crushed.

We've got a few of those around here too. Those circumstances don't apply.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I always go back the early middle ages when the concept we call marriage was more or less invented. Women typically died in childbirth and if they didn't they had 8 kids by the time they were 25, 3/4ths of them dying by age 5. If you made it to age 45 you were the town elder. This is when 'till death do you part' you could actually mark on your calendar. Maybe the whole idea that childhood now extends to age 25 while people typically live into their 80's is what makes the whole thing outmoded.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> This can happen, of course. I would say that their arrangement left a lot to be desired, and perhaps the limitations in place were partly responsible for the outcome. We're more poly oriented, so would just invite the person into our existing relationship, and would likely do so even if they had all the same desirable traits but to a somewhat lesser degree.


I agree with this. An old adage from swinging days, "Couples who play together, stay together".

But for US poly as we would now most closely associate has nothing to do with filling "needs" that are partner does not fill. It just is.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

My two cents.

Monogamy is really, really hard. 

As someone into DNA geneology, it always brings a smile to my face when i read statistics about the number of children where the legal husband is not the biological father. Depending on the culture anywhere from 10% to 20% of the kids aren't calling their real Dad, Dad and most of those fathers are clueless as well.

However, like most things in life, if it was easy, it wouldn't be so special. Monogamy is hard for both partners. It still is a good standard to try to live up to. Do people fail to live up to the standard? Yes, all the time. Does it destroy marriages, familiers and lives, when people don't live up to monogamy? Yes again.

Are there now incurable sexually transmitted diseases that reinforce traditional monogamy values in committed relationships? Yes there are.

I would agree with the original post of working hard on being monogomous in a non-monogomous world.

Still, I find that those who stray should not be critisized too harshly, especially if they and their spouse have resolved the relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

^^ Except that this discussion is not about straying.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Young at Heart said:


> My two cents.
> 
> Monogamy is really, really hard.
> 
> ...


Do you believe that those that find monogamy easy are in short supply? I not only find it easy but the only situation that I even find appealing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> Do you believe that those that find monogamy easy are in short supply? I not only find it easy but the only situation that I even find appealing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


First the URL link in the first post of this thread (where the term Monogamish is defined) is an article that basically says that it is difficult and that modern young professionals are shying away from it.

I would say that I do feel that many of the observations in that article are valid, at least in part. Are those desiring monogamy in short supply....no most people do get married and prefer to be married to their sex partner. Is marriage less common now within the USA than it was say 40 years ago? Yes, I feel it is less common. 

As someone who has been married for over 40 years have I found monogamy to be easy? Most of the time yes, but there have been a number of temptations. 

If you find it easy, then I envy you. If you look at many people who are held up in society as roll models (J.F. Kennedy, 
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.) they were not faithful to their marriage vows. Again, congratulations on your finding it so easy.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

WOW! Congrats on 40 years Young. I have only half of that under my belt. I appreciate your POV on this. BTW, everyone of the people you mentioned that cheated their butts off, they lost all my respect when they cheated. 

I don't look down on people that have a hard time with it but I am beginning to think that people wired like me might be the exception instead of the norm. 

I also wonder if people can't train themselves so whatever life they choose is second nature?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

While I believe it's imperative to educate all about the inherent difficulties many people face with being monogamous, not nearly enough is said about the fact that some people actually don't struggle with it at all. Some people, indeed, just aren't even tempted by cheating. 

It sort of reminds of how I barely ever drink and people seem surprised that I can go to a bar, hang out with folks all night, and nurse nothing but a club soda and feel absolutely no temptation to drink. A lot of people who drink, whether they have a problem or not, just can't fathom that. People who struggle with monogamy have a tough time understanding that there are other people who never do, and likely never will.


----------



## doobie (Apr 15, 2014)

I'm newly married in my fifties but have had several long term monogamous relationships over the years. What I have discovered is that monogamy has been easy when the sex has been satisfying, whereas if the sex is not good, I've found monogamy difficult to handle. In my marriage, we've had very little sex (nothing for 6 months now) and I'm finding monogamy almost unbearable. I would be quite willing to have an open marriage if my husband will agree to it. I've actually told him (during our most recent "talk" about our non existent sex life) that I would welcome it if he had an affair.


----------



## chaos (Mar 9, 2012)

doobie said:


> I'm newly married in my fifties but have had several long term monogamous relationships over the years. What I have discovered is that monogamy has been easy when the sex has been satisfying, whereas if the sex is not good, I've found monogamy difficult to handle. In my marriage, we've had very little sex (nothing for 6 months now) and I'm finding monogamy almost unbearable. I would be quite willing to have an open marriage if my husband will agree to it. I've actually told him (during our most recent "talk" about our non existent sex life) that I would welcome it if he had an affair.


If all you want is sex then an open marriage would be the ideal situation for you. There is no shortage of men who would thrilled to have sex with another man's wife. 

Unfortunately the same can't be said for your husband's chances of finding women wanting to have sex with him. And the few women who'd be willing to have sex with him will more than likely have an agenda to become the next Mrs Dobie.

Open marriages don't rescue marriages with issues. In many cases, it just speeds up the process of divorce.

If you want constant sex, the it is best that you divorce your husband than having an affair. Affairs bring nothing but total devastation, so avoid one like the plague.


----------

