Where the male used to rule (and protect) over a troup (family) consisting of several females, he is now forced to content himself with monogamy.
`
Uhm, what?
Sorry, but this is horse pucky. No one is “forced” to enter a monogamous relationship. If someone doesn’t want a monogamous relationship, they don’t have to establish one.
It may be harder to find a woman who’d prefer an open relationship over a monogamous one, but it sure as hell ISN’T impossible
Anyone who feels that they’re “forced” to content themselves with monogamy needs to listen to more Savage Love
`
Please don’t misunderstand. I was speaking in context of legal status in western societies.
`
Ah, ok, gotcha
But if we’re talking about ‘legal status’, then i’m not sure why you singled out men here…......because women are equally “forced to content herself with monogamy” when it comes to legal status
`
Is that how it is in Canada? I should move there!
In the States, generally, a man who is not content with monogamy can be punished legally; only in the most extreme cases are women held to this same standard.
With the legalization of Gay marriage, the focus is changing from law and convention to the notion that all humans should have the right to seek a loving relationship with whoever they want.
That will open the door to people who want multiple partners in whatever combination you can name.
I can think of no objection to this.
I like Bonobos. They have got this problem solved. The entire species is polyamorous. Even fights are settled with love making.
The motto “Make love, not war” truly applies to the Bonobo.
Is there a gender based hierarchy in Bonobo cultures?
I like Bonobos. They have got this problem solved. The entire species is polyamorous. Even fights are settled with love making.
The motto “Make love, not war” truly applies to the Bonobo.
Is there a gender based hierarchy in Bonobo cultures?
you didn’t answer, so I looked it up:
...Hierarchies are fundamentally “about” mating access, so male hierarchies apply solely in those species in which mating opportunities are controlled by males. This is not universal, and some species, bonobos being the most obvious, have either a female primary hierarchy, or a mixed hierarchy…
With the legalization of Gay marriage, the focus is changing from law and convention to the notion that all humans should have the right to seek a loving relationship with whoever they want.
That will open the door to people who want multiple partners in whatever combination you can name.
I can think of no objection to this.
With the legalization of Gay marriage, the focus is changing from law and convention to the notion that all humans should have the right to seek a loving relationship with whoever they want.
That will open the door to people who want multiple partners in whatever combination you can name.
I can think of no objection to this.
Regards
DL
Maybe in Canada, but not in the USA.
Watch.
It will be world wide. As it should be.
The U S already has multiple partners allowed.
Not true for a marriage in any of the United States. If you are talking about serial multiple partners because of a series of marriages with intervening divorces that’s not quite the same thing. Similarly, affairs are not condoned although they are quite common.
If you are talking about some other country with the initials U S, you’ll have to clarify.
In the States, generally, a man who is not content with monogamy can be punished legally; only in the most extreme cases are women held to this same standard.
`
What?? ‘splain Lucy :)
a man who has several female sexual partners can be punished legally? a man who has an mutually-agreed-upon ‘open’ relationship with his wife can be punished legally?
In the States, generally, a man who is not content with monogamy can be punished legally; only in the most extreme cases are women held to this same standard.
`
What?? ‘splain Lucy
a man who has several female sexual partners can be punished legally? a man who has an mutually-agreed-upon ‘open’ relationship with his wife can be punished legally?
WTF?
`
In many states, yes.
A married couple can agree to an open relationship, but when the wife inevitably gets tired of her husband having sex with other women, she can quite easily initiate divorce and ruin his life financially; marriage laws in the US don’t take open relationship agreements into account, although some states are more conservative about it than others. Actually, in a few states, a man and woman who simply live together are considered a common law married couple - whether the couple likes it or not.
Women however, are rarely treated the same way in that same scenario.
A married couple can agree to an open relationship, but when the wife inevitably gets tired of her husband having sex with other women, she can quite easily initiate divorce and ruin his life financially; marriage laws in the US don’t take open relationship agreements into account, although some states are more conservative about it than others. Actually, in a few states, a man and woman who simply live together are considered a common law married couple - whether the couple likes it or not.
Women however, are rarely treated the same way in that same scenario.
A man can initiate a divorce as easily as a woman. You cannot be put in jail or fined for adultery anywhere in the US, while the laws may be on the books, they are no longer enforceable (if you have examples of enforcement, please provide..). A person can live and copulate with as many people he or she wants, but can only be legally married to one at a time. The bigamy laws do get enforced, whether committed by a man or woman.
And from having observed the phenomenon of open marriage as it was practiced during the seventies, I got a kick because it was usually the husband who initiated it, and was also the one who wanted to go back to closed marriage. This was because the husbands had the idea that they could have all the women they wanted, but it turned out that it was much easier for the wife to find willing males than it was for the husbands to find willing women.
A married couple can agree to an open relationship, but when the wife inevitably gets tired of her husband having sex with other women, she can quite easily initiate divorce and ruin his life financially; marriage laws in the US don’t take open relationship agreements into account, although some states are more conservative about it than others. Actually, in a few states, a man and woman who simply live together are considered a common law married couple - whether the couple likes it or not.
Women however, are rarely treated the same way in that same scenario.
A man can initiate a divorce as easily as a woman. You cannot be put in jail or fined for adultery anywhere in the US, while the laws may be on the books, they are no longer enforceable (if you have examples of enforcement, please provide..). A person can live and copulate with as many people he or she wants, but can only be legally married to one at a time. The bigamy laws do get enforced, whether committed by a man or woman.
Yes a man can initiate divorce, but in many cases the courts rule in favor of the woman - even if she is clearly at fault.
And from having observed the phenomenon of open marriage as it was practiced during the seventies, I got a kick because it was usually the husband who initiated it, and was also the one who wanted to go back to closed marriage. This was because the husbands had the idea that they could have all the women they wanted, but it turned out that it was much easier for the wife to find willing males than it was for the husbands to find willing women.
Maybe, but from what I’ve seen, the general sexual behavior has changed markedly from what it was thirty-five years ago; my reference point for my post.
looking around at the world MEN of influence and means have achieved for humanity in the past century…
[- weeping frownie -]
how can such a weird question even be entertained?
We should not entertain thoughts of equality of the sexes?
Really?
Regards
DL
ahhh, sorry my train of thought wasn’t going along that track
Equality in what way?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ perhaps I wasn’t giving your opening post the seriousness it deserved, but the god and king stuff tripped me up.
i just sort of fixated on:
“Should man rule over women for women’s own good?”
As for my remark, it was more along the lines of:
Jeez, it’s impossible to imagine how women could/would have screwed the pooch as badly as men have.
