Just using that as an example for argument's sake from the female's perspective... however, you're quite correct. The fact that a man is still willing to TRY no matter how slim the odds, is proof enough; not to mention those individuals who risk their health/lives requesting BBFS, or for that matter, hobbyists like ourselves who spend countless thousands of dollars just to have sex with a variety of different women whenever we so desire. In the sober light of day this appears to be folly. The fact that it occurs at all is indicative of an underlying instinct which takes precedence over everything else.DocOdd said:
Is monogamy really possible??
- Thread starter peeler_feeler
- Start date
Bud: That sounds like rationalizing to me, sorry. You alternately spew out justifications of it based on unfair family laws, change over time, and fear of ending the marriage. What's missing in your entire analysis is the other person. What about your spouse's interests? Not relevant?
I agree that things may change over time, and that the ultimate honesty might be, "I don't love you any more". That's a discussion that you need to have, in that case. Most of the time people say that, I think the problems are solvable. However, sometimes they're not, and you are effectively denying your spouse the opportunity to go out and find a relationship that DOES include love.
That's insanely selfish.
Family law is not that punitive. Review your tax code. There are an endless number of things you can write off if you separate from your spouse. Yeah you hand over a lot of cash in support payments, but it effectively splits your income--whereas you were taxed as a sole earner while you were in the marriage. That should save you some 43 cents on your top marginal dollar, so it's actually not as expensive as you pretend. In addition to the income splitting you are allowed to divide your property without attribution penalties, reducing your marginal tax rate on income producing investments. When you add it all together it's not as bad as you think.
Sometimes when I read the tax rules I wish that my wife and I could pretend to live separately. Married couples have preferential tax treatment over singles, but what people rarely mention is that separated couples get the sweetest deal from the CRA.
- - -
As for all this "biology proves promiscuity is OK" grow up. Biologically men are inclined to rape, women are inclined to cuckold, and relatives are inclined to murder children born out of wedlock. Biologically speaking all sex leads to children, and birth control is "wrong". Arguing that biology ought to govern behavior is a double edged sword, as 90% of what biology would have us do is clearly wrong.
Thankfully humans have evolved conscious brains. We are capable of overruling our biology and have as a result become able to forgo the prehistoric biological mandate to rape women and kill children. We're also free to use birth control, so that sex can be something done for fun, rather than for the sheer furtherance of the species.
We can forgo cheating too. We have choice.
So that brings the debate back to what is better for society as a whole, regardless of whatever "biology says" you should do. Generally, putting some pressure on people to resolve their differences is good for society; it's also good to provide divorce as an outlet for those who can't.
The trouble with cheating and not telling your wife about it is that you are trodding all over her rights. I am all for the notion that people ought to be free to do whatever they like, in situations where they're all consenting adults. The trouble with cheating on your wife is that she hasn't consented to it. So it's wrong.
Your rights stop where the next person's begin; in this case, where your wife's rights begin. You chose your situation, and you can chose to change it if that's what you want. She doesn't hae a right to "lock you" into a contract forever--you do have divorce as an ultimate option. But I don't buy these excuses that it has to be done in such an unfair, underhanded, deceitful way. You put yourself in your present situation and you are responsible for it.
Your wife has a right to try and build the kind of life she wants to live, and if you are cheating on her, you are denying that right to her--you are causing her to live under an illusion that very likely prevents her from realizing some of her dreams.
I agree that things may change over time, and that the ultimate honesty might be, "I don't love you any more". That's a discussion that you need to have, in that case. Most of the time people say that, I think the problems are solvable. However, sometimes they're not, and you are effectively denying your spouse the opportunity to go out and find a relationship that DOES include love.
That's insanely selfish.
Family law is not that punitive. Review your tax code. There are an endless number of things you can write off if you separate from your spouse. Yeah you hand over a lot of cash in support payments, but it effectively splits your income--whereas you were taxed as a sole earner while you were in the marriage. That should save you some 43 cents on your top marginal dollar, so it's actually not as expensive as you pretend. In addition to the income splitting you are allowed to divide your property without attribution penalties, reducing your marginal tax rate on income producing investments. When you add it all together it's not as bad as you think.
Sometimes when I read the tax rules I wish that my wife and I could pretend to live separately. Married couples have preferential tax treatment over singles, but what people rarely mention is that separated couples get the sweetest deal from the CRA.
- - -
As for all this "biology proves promiscuity is OK" grow up. Biologically men are inclined to rape, women are inclined to cuckold, and relatives are inclined to murder children born out of wedlock. Biologically speaking all sex leads to children, and birth control is "wrong". Arguing that biology ought to govern behavior is a double edged sword, as 90% of what biology would have us do is clearly wrong.
Thankfully humans have evolved conscious brains. We are capable of overruling our biology and have as a result become able to forgo the prehistoric biological mandate to rape women and kill children. We're also free to use birth control, so that sex can be something done for fun, rather than for the sheer furtherance of the species.
We can forgo cheating too. We have choice.
So that brings the debate back to what is better for society as a whole, regardless of whatever "biology says" you should do. Generally, putting some pressure on people to resolve their differences is good for society; it's also good to provide divorce as an outlet for those who can't.
The trouble with cheating and not telling your wife about it is that you are trodding all over her rights. I am all for the notion that people ought to be free to do whatever they like, in situations where they're all consenting adults. The trouble with cheating on your wife is that she hasn't consented to it. So it's wrong.
Your rights stop where the next person's begin; in this case, where your wife's rights begin. You chose your situation, and you can chose to change it if that's what you want. She doesn't hae a right to "lock you" into a contract forever--you do have divorce as an ultimate option. But I don't buy these excuses that it has to be done in such an unfair, underhanded, deceitful way. You put yourself in your present situation and you are responsible for it.
Your wife has a right to try and build the kind of life she wants to live, and if you are cheating on her, you are denying that right to her--you are causing her to live under an illusion that very likely prevents her from realizing some of her dreams.
OK, there is a loose way of speaking in which it could certainly be said that all organisms have a drive to reproduce. The entire goal of my argument has been to establish that this is a loose way of speaking. Here's an analogy. A frog will invariably shoot out its tongue when a dark object which is roughly fly-sized flies into its field of vision. The simplest, and not completely wrong, explanation, is that the frog sees food, and it wants food so it goes after the fly. However, studies suggest that this is too heavily anthropomorphic; it gives flies too much credit. In particular, no matter how much inedible junk you throw in front of a frog, it will never learn to stop going for it; the only thing that will stop it from sticking out its tongue, grabbing the object, and swallowing, is if it has died from your having fed it too much inedible junk in previous repetitions of the experiment. So it seems more accurate to speak of the frog as having an instinct to react to fly-like objects, though the loose way of speaking which says the frog wants food is probably not too bad for some purposes.
I'm trying to suggest that a mistake in the opposite direction is being made by many in this thread (and incidentally many in evolutionary psychology). Now, clearly there is some biologically determined interest in sex in people. The point I'm trying to make is that this is different from a biologically determined interest in reproduction, even if the former arose from the latter. And the fact that people's interests do come apart in so many ways, that people's reactions are so much more complicated than frogs, is why I think the reproduction instinct is a misleadingly oversimplified account of human behavior, just as the desire for food is probably a misleadingly overcomplicated account of frog behavior which really is all instinctual. People do in fact have desires (unless, I suppose, Paul Churchland is right). Some of them do genuinely have a desire to reproduce (for some unusual individuals, this may even be stronger than the desire for sex; there are freaks who'd like to reproduce but would prefer to do without the sex entirely if they can). Most of them want sex. Many of them want sex without reproduction (as in my birth control example, or consider homosexuals, or how many of us straights enjoy our BJTCs and greek encounters). And the forms in which their desires manifest and the ways in which they interact are extremely complicated. It's not even true that we can be sure there'd be no desire for sex if it didn't have its role in reproduction; it serves other functions in social organization. Saying that it all comes down to a reproduction prime directive stunningly oversimplifies all these issues.
To drag this back on topic, I feel like asking if people are or are not naturally monogamous is somewhat like asking if they are or are not naturally tea drinkers. There are plenty of biological factors that enter into why people drink tea, and there are even biological factors we know about that help explain why some people don't like to. However, tea-drinking is also quite obviously hugely influenced by cultural factors. The question of whether it's natural does not, I think, fundamentally make sense; the issue is just more complicated than that.
I'm trying to suggest that a mistake in the opposite direction is being made by many in this thread (and incidentally many in evolutionary psychology). Now, clearly there is some biologically determined interest in sex in people. The point I'm trying to make is that this is different from a biologically determined interest in reproduction, even if the former arose from the latter. And the fact that people's interests do come apart in so many ways, that people's reactions are so much more complicated than frogs, is why I think the reproduction instinct is a misleadingly oversimplified account of human behavior, just as the desire for food is probably a misleadingly overcomplicated account of frog behavior which really is all instinctual. People do in fact have desires (unless, I suppose, Paul Churchland is right). Some of them do genuinely have a desire to reproduce (for some unusual individuals, this may even be stronger than the desire for sex; there are freaks who'd like to reproduce but would prefer to do without the sex entirely if they can). Most of them want sex. Many of them want sex without reproduction (as in my birth control example, or consider homosexuals, or how many of us straights enjoy our BJTCs and greek encounters). And the forms in which their desires manifest and the ways in which they interact are extremely complicated. It's not even true that we can be sure there'd be no desire for sex if it didn't have its role in reproduction; it serves other functions in social organization. Saying that it all comes down to a reproduction prime directive stunningly oversimplifies all these issues.
To drag this back on topic, I feel like asking if people are or are not naturally monogamous is somewhat like asking if they are or are not naturally tea drinkers. There are plenty of biological factors that enter into why people drink tea, and there are even biological factors we know about that help explain why some people don't like to. However, tea-drinking is also quite obviously hugely influenced by cultural factors. The question of whether it's natural does not, I think, fundamentally make sense; the issue is just more complicated than that.
Sure it is complex
Oh right, it is oversimplifying things to attribute human biology to why humans drink. They drink primarily because of "complex reasons", right? Would people still drink if there were no biological reasons to do so and there was no biological effect?
Would people fuck if there were no biological instinct and no biological response? Here let me put my finger in your ear and pull it out and put it in an pull it out and put it in. Hey lets do it because it "serves other functions in social organization".
"Falling in love" doesn't produce chemicals much like a drug in our bodies, does it? Oxytocin and vasopressin play no role in our psychology and thus behavior, do they? Hypersexuality in bipolar episodes doesn't have a biological basis in an activating of a part of the brain and it's chemistry does it? No it is all about the "character" of those affected with bipolar Disorder, right?
Humans are holistic, thoughts can affect chemistry and chemistry can affect thought patterns, so no it is not all that simple, as you have pointed out. Higher-level biological interactions may incline one to be more monogamous than another, such as addiction and dependence responses.
Again, yes monogamy is possible. "[Humans] have a big brain; we can decide all sorts of things. Just because there's biology does not mean we are destined to follow any particular biological route (1)." Yet I would propose that primal human biology is not the reason for human monogamy, quite to the contrary, and in fact makes it a struggle for many to stay monogamous.
I agree that advice based on that is rather quite useless. However consideration of why people do what they do based on that wiring I would think has value in coming to an understanding of human behavior.DocOdd said:
Are there biological factors as to why people drink? Or are there biological factors as to why they drink "tea" specifically?DocOdd said:
Oh right, it is oversimplifying things to attribute human biology to why humans drink. They drink primarily because of "complex reasons", right? Would people still drink if there were no biological reasons to do so and there was no biological effect?
Would people fuck if there were no biological instinct and no biological response? Here let me put my finger in your ear and pull it out and put it in an pull it out and put it in. Hey lets do it because it "serves other functions in social organization".
"Falling in love" doesn't produce chemicals much like a drug in our bodies, does it? Oxytocin and vasopressin play no role in our psychology and thus behavior, do they? Hypersexuality in bipolar episodes doesn't have a biological basis in an activating of a part of the brain and it's chemistry does it? No it is all about the "character" of those affected with bipolar Disorder, right?
Humans are holistic, thoughts can affect chemistry and chemistry can affect thought patterns, so no it is not all that simple, as you have pointed out. Higher-level biological interactions may incline one to be more monogamous than another, such as addiction and dependence responses.
Again, yes monogamy is possible. "[Humans] have a big brain; we can decide all sorts of things. Just because there's biology does not mean we are destined to follow any particular biological route (1)." Yet I would propose that primal human biology is not the reason for human monogamy, quite to the contrary, and in fact makes it a struggle for many to stay monogamous.
I think personal growth and personal choices have a lot to do with it, I've hobbyed while I was married and after that while in relationships, everytime it was a huge mistake...and I regretted it, especially when hurting the SO......for me monogamy is an essential and mandatory part of a successful and enriching relationship, which is what I want now and is, along with the fact that I'm now blasé with the whole sp situation, why my hobbying days are behind me.
Another reason to move to Canada. Not in the states or else I'm owed one helluva rebate.gala said:
Gala, I assume that you are male. You are the first male in my experience who has ever analyzed family law and tax law as making it advantageous to divorce or separate, and that includes speaking to numerous family law lawyers on the subject! The effects of family law are clear:gala said:
1. You pay spousal support based on your spouse's lifestyle during marriage, not based on the lifestyle your spouse could have expected had she not married. As a result, your lifestyle is significantly reduced from what it would have been had you never married (unless you are so wealthy that no amount of support payment could affect your lifestyle), while the law attempts to maintain the lifestyle of your spouse. Who wants to split their income if, in the result, you go from living in a nice home to barely getting by in an apartment?
2. You pay child support based on how much money you make, not based on the needs of the child, even if you actually provide for the child by sharing parenting (and thus shelter, food, clothing, etc) equally! You make these payments to your ex-spouse and she can spend the money on whatever she wants. There is no guarantee it will be spent on your children.
3. While there may be no attribution consequences on the splitting of property, it still amounts to giving away your property for nothing to someone else! Who cares if its tax free?! The tax consequences would only seem like an advantage if you had planned to give your property to your wife all along.
The real acid test is that I know plenty of men who were the bread-winners of their families, many of them lawyers themselves. Not one of them lives as well as they did while married, and every one of them complains how unfair the property division and support rules are. I don't think they're all full of it.
Even more significantly, divorce has a significant impact on children. Your argument suggests that covert hobbying is unfair to your spouse who has a right to seek out a relationship that includes love (although love is a word that has an infinite number of meanings and degrees, but that would open up a whole other discussion). I suggest that the interests of the children come before the interests of either spouse in pursuing different relationships.
behind the question
Hi peeler_feeler
I always look for the question behind the question and answer that. What I see behind, your question is-"Can I be happy in a monogomous relationship" I would venture that nobody really knows you well enough to answer that question here. But that just by hearing you ask the question I would guess that right now the answer is -probably not. And this could change.
Also the fact that you are on an escort review board asking the question suggests that you have some exploring to do sexually before "settling down". And perhaps you are already married in which case-do what thou wilt.
Generally I feel it is possible to be happy within a monogomous relationship but not as a result of said relationship. Like wise, it is possible to be a happy-pooner. However, if you are looking for either monogamy or pooning to make you happy-good luck to you.
Happiness-true happiness-comes from with-in and has nothing what-so-ever to do with outside circumstance. Easy to say but oh-so hard to remember. True happiness means having a "yes"-an acceptence- to what happens. You can have this "yes" to any circumstance-from getting a date with the hottest lady you can imagine to losing a million dollars.
Why would you have a yes to losing a million? Why to have the chance to making it again. I know this as a fact(no I did not lose a million) but I did become homeless a few years ago-in winter-in Canada.
It was a decision I made and when I made it-and felt that inner "yes" to it I felt great. Happiness flooded my whole being. Since then I have been traveling the world. I never know where I will be staying from week to week. After a short stay at the Vancouver airport I have always had a roof over my head except when I was staying in California for a few weeks and slept beneath the stars.
I have stayed in 200$ per night hotels and 2$ per night bungalows in Thailand. I have hung out with rock stars and consorted with street hookers. I have feasted on oysters and champaign and gone days with out eating. Life has been well-alive.
This has swerved off topic I realise but my point is that anything is possible if you start to look for a way that it might happen. If you want to "stay faithful" look for a way to make that happen. Learn about sexual energy-how it moves, why you feel attracted to a particular person and not another. Why a long term partner becomes "less sexually attractive" There are reasons to these things-they don't "just happen."
Thats all for now-YL
Hi peeler_feeler
I always look for the question behind the question and answer that. What I see behind, your question is-"Can I be happy in a monogomous relationship" I would venture that nobody really knows you well enough to answer that question here. But that just by hearing you ask the question I would guess that right now the answer is -probably not. And this could change.
Also the fact that you are on an escort review board asking the question suggests that you have some exploring to do sexually before "settling down". And perhaps you are already married in which case-do what thou wilt.
Generally I feel it is possible to be happy within a monogomous relationship but not as a result of said relationship. Like wise, it is possible to be a happy-pooner. However, if you are looking for either monogamy or pooning to make you happy-good luck to you.
Happiness-true happiness-comes from with-in and has nothing what-so-ever to do with outside circumstance. Easy to say but oh-so hard to remember. True happiness means having a "yes"-an acceptence- to what happens. You can have this "yes" to any circumstance-from getting a date with the hottest lady you can imagine to losing a million dollars.
Why would you have a yes to losing a million? Why to have the chance to making it again. I know this as a fact(no I did not lose a million) but I did become homeless a few years ago-in winter-in Canada.
It was a decision I made and when I made it-and felt that inner "yes" to it I felt great. Happiness flooded my whole being. Since then I have been traveling the world. I never know where I will be staying from week to week. After a short stay at the Vancouver airport I have always had a roof over my head except when I was staying in California for a few weeks and slept beneath the stars.
I have stayed in 200$ per night hotels and 2$ per night bungalows in Thailand. I have hung out with rock stars and consorted with street hookers. I have feasted on oysters and champaign and gone days with out eating. Life has been well-alive.
This has swerved off topic I realise but my point is that anything is possible if you start to look for a way that it might happen. If you want to "stay faithful" look for a way to make that happen. Learn about sexual energy-how it moves, why you feel attracted to a particular person and not another. Why a long term partner becomes "less sexually attractive" There are reasons to these things-they don't "just happen."
Thats all for now-YL
Re:A little bit more
Would you miss your spouse? Yes
Would you feel less guilty without a spouse when participating in this hobby?
Yes-but probably only less, as you had religious conditioning as a child and probably believe at some deep level that sex is "bad".
A "swinger" wife would still not make you happy-see my above post about how to be happy.
Should you try harder? Perhaps not try harder but look deeper at your spouse. Why were you originally attracted to her? What has changed about her, about you? Is there any "sexual polarity" between you? Do you find her "sexy"? Are you sexy to her? If you really want to look at this you will find the answers to these and other quetions.
A good source for answers that I know of is a tantric teacher named David Deida. Do a google search and see what comes up.
It is a fact that a young nubile EE escort who is willing-for a price-to worship your penis for an hour, is sexier than a spouse of 15 years. This is not because your spouse is inherently un-sexy, but because when a couple lives together for any length of time the sexual polarity decreases unless consciously attended to. And there are ways to regain this sexual polarity but you both have to want to do it. The first step is to speak to your wife-not to confess your adventures-but to admit to her that you would like to find her sexy again.
I realise this maybe a huge step-admiting to her that you want to find her sexy again means admiting that you don't find her sexy now. But no worries-she probably does not find you sexy right now either. And remember-she is a woman and she already know this-women know this stuff. They feel it. They don't always admit it to themselves-but they know.
I wish you well.
Good Luck-YL
I went back and read your original posting and realised that you had given more info in your post than I had remembered.peeler_feeler said:
Would you miss your spouse? Yes
Would you feel less guilty without a spouse when participating in this hobby?
Yes-but probably only less, as you had religious conditioning as a child and probably believe at some deep level that sex is "bad".
A "swinger" wife would still not make you happy-see my above post about how to be happy.
Should you try harder? Perhaps not try harder but look deeper at your spouse. Why were you originally attracted to her? What has changed about her, about you? Is there any "sexual polarity" between you? Do you find her "sexy"? Are you sexy to her? If you really want to look at this you will find the answers to these and other quetions.
A good source for answers that I know of is a tantric teacher named David Deida. Do a google search and see what comes up.
It is a fact that a young nubile EE escort who is willing-for a price-to worship your penis for an hour, is sexier than a spouse of 15 years. This is not because your spouse is inherently un-sexy, but because when a couple lives together for any length of time the sexual polarity decreases unless consciously attended to. And there are ways to regain this sexual polarity but you both have to want to do it. The first step is to speak to your wife-not to confess your adventures-but to admit to her that you would like to find her sexy again.
I realise this maybe a huge step-admiting to her that you want to find her sexy again means admiting that you don't find her sexy now. But no worries-she probably does not find you sexy right now either. And remember-she is a woman and she already know this-women know this stuff. They feel it. They don't always admit it to themselves-but they know.
I wish you well.
Good Luck-YL
RIP TJO! Now it is your turn to get to work Poolie. I know that you can come up with something.pool said:
YL is a very wise man! Unfortunately too esoteric for most. Not that most don't get the words, they just don't get the essence.
Do you get the essence? I don't get the esseence? Perhaps there is no essence.tompeepin said:
It is just what I see and I do this for a living. And I enjoy it!!
When words fail or maybe just my linguistic skills.
Unfortunately not totally! But I do catch a climpse now and then.
I guess all I am saying is that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is when knowledge becomes a part of you. It becomes intuitive. You just know. For example if someone does not know what it really means and is like to love themselves they might understand the words but not know the essence of those words.
Maybe essense was the wrong word to use. But no other word came to the tip of my tougue or mind.
yoniluvrca said:
Unfortunately not totally! But I do catch a climpse now and then. I guess all I am saying is that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is when knowledge becomes a part of you. It becomes intuitive. You just know. For example if someone does not know what it really means and is like to love themselves they might understand the words but not know the essence of those words.
Maybe essense was the wrong word to use. But no other word came to the tip of my tougue or mind.
Re: When words fail or maybe just my linguistic skills.
Thanks for the feed back-I got it. I realised while away from the computer that my reply to you was a bit short-as in brusk. What I see about it for myself is that I was taking back what I wrote and swatting away your compliment.
And what I get from you reply is that you also are that-wise I mean. It takes one to know one as we used to say in grade school-kids are much wiser than we give them credit. What was the title of that book? All I reall need to know I learned in Kindergarten.
And that is a good example you give. I still-on one level-don't really know what it means to love myself. And on another level I know absolutely. Coming from the level that "knows"-this takes constant watching and a good dose of not taking it serriously. I can do this easily when I read somebody and in my day to day life I often let it slide-with predictable results.
And it is true that I have really lived my life. I have had a few "successes" and many "failures". I have worked at everything from grease monkey to male prostitute-to see what it was like from "the other side"-It was fun, but I did not like the penises so much-next time I will try women!!
I have lived in a $5000 dollar per night mansion rented by some dear friends and I have spent time in jail for drug smuggling(many years ago and in a really libral country).
Through all of this some part of me has watched the differences. My preference was and still is comfort. But I would rather be happy than comfortable and for me this means freedom-guess that is why I got myself locked up. I have been addicted to drugs and spent 2.5 hrs. per day meditating-for 1000 days. I have been celibate and spent three months in Thailand screwing as many hookers(with protection of course)as I could afford-and this was quite a few. Many opposites.
As I look back I can see that all the "bad" stuff could have been so much worse. Something protected me-gave me the experience but not enough to do any real damage. For this I am thankful-and also just for the experience.
Anyway-back to you-check in with your own wisdom. It is there or you would not be able to see it in the other. The same applys for beauty. You know those beautiful ladies we all pay so much money to spend time with us? Each one of us has such a beauty inside themselves. I know-I can see it as clear as you see your computer right now. And I don't even have to "see"the person. Some writting or some words are enough.
And the funny thing is-the ugliest folks are often the most beautiful when they shine. Look at Stephen Hawkins some day-such beauty!!!
That is not to say that the ladies here are not beautiful-they are-they just wear it on the outside where it is easy to see. Yet the funny thing is-if you ask-the most beautiful often believe themselves to be ugly-they don't see it!! It is the same for all of us and our "inner beauty".
I hope I have not hijacked this thread-all this is a little off the topic of monogamy. But it is coming as it comes. I guess what I really want to say to close is that everyone does see this essence-we usually chose to ignore it-thus much of our unhappiness in the world. Freedom means being able to say anything-to any one-at any time. They may not like it-it may ruin your marriage-lose you your job-but set you free.
Regards from Berlin-YL
Hi tompeepintompeepin said:
I guess all I am saying is that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is when knowledge becomes a part of you. It becomes intuitive. You just know. For example if someone does not know what it really means and is like to love themselves they might understand the words but not know the essence of those words.
Maybe essense was the wrong word to use. But no other word came to the tip of my tougue or mind.
Thanks for the feed back-I got it. I realised while away from the computer that my reply to you was a bit short-as in brusk. What I see about it for myself is that I was taking back what I wrote and swatting away your compliment.
And what I get from you reply is that you also are that-wise I mean. It takes one to know one as we used to say in grade school-kids are much wiser than we give them credit. What was the title of that book? All I reall need to know I learned in Kindergarten.
And that is a good example you give. I still-on one level-don't really know what it means to love myself. And on another level I know absolutely. Coming from the level that "knows"-this takes constant watching and a good dose of not taking it serriously. I can do this easily when I read somebody and in my day to day life I often let it slide-with predictable results.
And it is true that I have really lived my life. I have had a few "successes" and many "failures". I have worked at everything from grease monkey to male prostitute-to see what it was like from "the other side"-It was fun, but I did not like the penises so much-next time I will try women!!
I have lived in a $5000 dollar per night mansion rented by some dear friends and I have spent time in jail for drug smuggling(many years ago and in a really libral country).
Through all of this some part of me has watched the differences. My preference was and still is comfort. But I would rather be happy than comfortable and for me this means freedom-guess that is why I got myself locked up. I have been addicted to drugs and spent 2.5 hrs. per day meditating-for 1000 days. I have been celibate and spent three months in Thailand screwing as many hookers(with protection of course)as I could afford-and this was quite a few. Many opposites.
As I look back I can see that all the "bad" stuff could have been so much worse. Something protected me-gave me the experience but not enough to do any real damage. For this I am thankful-and also just for the experience.
Anyway-back to you-check in with your own wisdom. It is there or you would not be able to see it in the other. The same applys for beauty. You know those beautiful ladies we all pay so much money to spend time with us? Each one of us has such a beauty inside themselves. I know-I can see it as clear as you see your computer right now. And I don't even have to "see"the person. Some writting or some words are enough.
And the funny thing is-the ugliest folks are often the most beautiful when they shine. Look at Stephen Hawkins some day-such beauty!!!
That is not to say that the ladies here are not beautiful-they are-they just wear it on the outside where it is easy to see. Yet the funny thing is-if you ask-the most beautiful often believe themselves to be ugly-they don't see it!! It is the same for all of us and our "inner beauty".
I hope I have not hijacked this thread-all this is a little off the topic of monogamy. But it is coming as it comes. I guess what I really want to say to close is that everyone does see this essence-we usually chose to ignore it-thus much of our unhappiness in the world. Freedom means being able to say anything-to any one-at any time. They may not like it-it may ruin your marriage-lose you your job-but set you free.
Regards from Berlin-YL
Yup. Granted. But we're not asking whether a guy should get married here, we're asking if he should get a divorce. He's already supporting his spouse. It'll be a bit more expensive if they separate, because it'll take two apartments, etc., but the tax credits and income splitting will make up for that. Compared to what he has TODAY, he won't have any less if he separates.Bud Plug said:
I'm not saying family law is fair. I'm just saying it isn't punitive, and that it can't be used as an excuse to cheat on your wife.
It could be used as an excuse not to get married in the first place. That's not what we're talking about here, though.
This is the part I dispute. You are ALREADY paying your wife's living expenses, right now, as a married couple. Yes, supportting two residences would be more expensive, but I claim that the tax credits make up for that. No, it won't make it like it was if you had never got married--nothing will do that--but it shouldn't be worse than now.
Therefore sure you can call it unfair for lots of reasons, but not in a way that justifies cheating on your wife. Your current standard of living should not decrease.
Again, the point is you are effectively splitting it NOW, only right NOW the CRA won't let you declare it split on your tax returns. If you give some of your investments to your wife the CRA will attribute the income to you, and tax you for it. After a separation if you give them to your wife the CRA will tax it against HER income, not yours. So overall the two of you pay less tax than the two of you do today.
Again, sure, if you never got married it'd all be yours. The question here is whether family law can be used as an excuse to cheat on your wife--it cannot. Divorce is not any more expensive than the current marriage is. (Ordinarily.)
Yup. It has an impact on children and that's worth discussing. I think the right thing here is a conversation with your spouse like this: "Look, i want out of this marriage, but I dont' want to hurt our kids. So I'm effectively going to live my life, and you live your life however you want, but in front of our kids, let's act like a family. I'll move into the second bedroom, but I'll still be around the house and we'll keep up appearances for their sake."
I wholly support putting the interests of your kids before your own, but I still don't see how that is an excuse for deceit.
Re: Re: When words fail or maybe just my linguistic skills.
On the topic of monogamy an interesting book is Silk by the Italian writer Alessandro Baricco.
Sometimes the hardest things to see is what is right in front of us. Often I go looking for my glasses whilst I am wearing them. Too many distractions. Too much noise.yoniluvrca said:
On the topic of monogamy an interesting book is Silk by the Italian writer Alessandro Baricco.
Selina said:
I think some people marry for physical attraction and enjoy sex with their partners , I don't understand if those people see an sp although I won't choose for people.
A lot of marriages I believe are because some people just get tired of being alone and want someone to lets say, go camping , fishing to a movie , dinner etc and don't want to live alone. They may not have been lucky enough to find someone who they are all that attracted to physically so they see sp's.
I won't say this is right or wrong because the marriage may still be beneficial to both parties.
Even in strip clubs a lot of guys are there because they don't want to go home to nothing.
Sorry I agree with bud . I used to think exactly like you about 100 % honesty but have changed somewhat. If a couple has been married lets say 10 years and have 2 kids and get along do you think it's right to destroy all that because he may see an sp say once every 6 to 8 months. I don't think so, the loss to me outweighs the gain . A marriage is more than having sex with one person and can continue a lot longer after a person stops seeing an spgala said:
Booboo... "after a person stops" sure, I can understand keeping your mouth shut. You're not cheating in the future, and while the past may not be perfect, it's the future that counts I think. Still, though, like bud you have this "the loss to me" thing going on as though your wife's interests are irrelevant. The thing about a marriage is that there's two people involved, not one.
