Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
Joined: 1/24/2006
Msg: 21
view profile
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?Page 6 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
i tried abstinence once.. but it was nothing to celibate about
 Dark Dreamer
Joined: 7/26/2006
Msg: 24
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/23/2006 9:06:27 PM
I've always thought that who a person has sex with is strictly between them, their partner, their videographer, their leather-goods supplier, the guy who has to fix the ceiling fan afterward, and however many midgets they invite to watch.
 Dark Dreamer
Joined: 7/26/2006
Msg: 25
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/23/2006 9:08:13 PM
A previous poster writes:

"No one has ever said on their deathbed that they wished they had slept around more"

Are you kidding?
Has anybody ever NOT said that?
Or at least, thought it?
Joined: 6/29/2006
Msg: 26
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/23/2006 9:15:56 PM
I think they are the two lifestyles with the least, or the perception of the least, amount of potential bullshit in a relationship. I think that's why they are common and socially accepted.

That being said, I don't care what other people choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as they don't interfere with what I choose to do in mine.

But I think as time goes on, you'll find that both celibacy and monogamy have their own house blend of well refined bullshit. Someone not having any sex at all can be somewhat repressed and lonely about it all. Someone in a monogamous relationship risks the potential devastation from being cheated on by their partner.
Joined: 9/15/2004
Msg: 30
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/24/2006 6:43:27 AM
well, i have not seen anyone jump onto the "judgemental, morality bandwagon" that Taurus originally warned us about.

the most interesting thing about this thread is that only one person considered the social ramifications of our sexual decisions. Hezron said that "uncontrolled breeding leads to anarchy" and several people already responded to that post.

every other poster besides Hezron believed essentially the same thing; that is what rainskiss summed up so well:
I live my life by MY morals and MY ethics,
not by how someone else says I should or shouldn't live.
even ethically sensitive people like Gothygeek espoused essentially this philosophy. there is an alternative.

instead of doing what's best for "me," i can do what's best for others. this ethic can be most closely associated with the Judeo-Christian tradition. that tradition contends, at least in theory, that the human body is the most valueable thing on earth. any harm or wrong-doing that comes to that body is the worst thing that could ever happen in the universe. maybe celebit and monogomous lifestyles best suite this moral framework.

this framework would of course translate not only into how we treat our partners but to how we raise our children. if, in fact, the human body is the most precious thing on earh then children would be raised with great care, not lent out to foster parents (bless them), daycares and State schools. altering the family unit has enourmous cultural and societal consequences, which is why "gay marriage" issues are so important to people. at least the right wing fundamentalists are considering the result of changing the family unit for future generations. maybe we're too dependent on other people to live "MY life by MY rules." that philosophy doesn't allow you to look outside yourself where everything is really happening.
Joined: 9/15/2004
Msg: 35
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/24/2006 8:48:12 AM

I don't see how the acceptance of gay marriages or alternate lifestyles would affect the family unit one iota.

i agree with you completely on this point. the reason i brought up the "gay marriage" issue is because i see it as society's misinformed way of dealing with redefined family.

from the beginning, celibacy and monogamy may be properly suited to a lifestyle that engages the benefit of others before its own preference. "alternative lifestyles," as opposed to the "traditional relationship," may or may not be driven by "MY life, MY rules," but the people on this forum certainly are driven by that philosophy. and i don't think this forum is alone. its representative of Western culture. this philosophy may not be good for many reasons, one of which is its effect on child rearing.

now, a little on "family" (and sorry my two posts have been long):
the family unit may very well be under attack. this is not due to "gay marriages/alternative lifestyles," rather it's how everyone of us views sex. we place it in the category of "private." we say, "its none of your business if i'm monagamous/gay or not. we're able to do this because all of our primary relationships are shallow. we know people at work and we have a few friends (hopefully) but these relationships are by and large superficial. we lack what the family has traditionally offered.

today, a husband and wife can entirely avoid each other. that may sound weird but when i lived in my parent's house, i was able to entirely avoid them. the point is that people are more isolated from one another now than they have ever been. celebit people intentionally seek out life long friends that will function as their "family." monogamous relationships at least have the potential to protect you from the harsh reality of loneliness.

i'm not saying that we must have a "nucleur family," but i am saying we need a viable alternative for child rearing. daycares and State schools aren't cutting it. kids are worse than ever and it is directly related to "My Life My Rules" sexuality, which celebacy and monoagmy resist.
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 43
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:39:53 PM
When Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada and introduced a bill to revoke the law banning sodomy, he said that the goverment of Canada had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. On the other hand there are a lot of people in my country and yours who seem to have nothing better to do than concern themselves with which or how many orifices their neighbours are introducing their sexual organs into.
Is it perhaps because of ther fear that some people are getting more than they are - or enjoying it more?
Great post, Taurus! You ought to post it on as many dating sites as you can.
Joined: 8/9/2006
Msg: 47
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/24/2006 2:15:52 PM
..................yes it is.......................
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 48
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/24/2006 2:31:08 PM
I'm going to post a short on topic post and then ya' all can get back to discussing gay marriage, gay couples raising children, sodomy and anything else that happens to come up. (Great discussions by the way!!!)

~OT~ I am celibate when not in a long term monogamous relationship. It's the only way I am comfortable and it's the only option for me personally. However, I do not think it makes me any more virtuous, moralistic or otherwise ethical than someone who does not choose my way. It's personal preference and hopefully we all know enough about our own selves to make decisions based upon how our actions will effect/affect others. To each their own!!!
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 50
view profile
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/24/2006 2:43:11 PM
I am a proponent of the 14th Ammendment, so I accept anyone that isn't doing something against someone's will however much it might revolt my personal sensibilities. I don't like Polygamy and I think the State should outright prohibit minor children from getting married. But who am I to tell an adult he/she can't share a man/woman with another man/woman as long as she freely admits she wasn't coerced/forced into the arrangement? I know gays that are fabulous parents. However much I don't personaly get their "orientation" I'll support their consenting right to it whether America as we'd known it until recent years ends up surviving in the end or not.

I want one woman that wants one man, but I am not monogamus by nature, I know that. As long as there is consent between adults who I am to judge what they do in the privacy of their own homes, etc.? As an an American I am noone to make that judgement. If these "Concerned Women For America" truly are concerned for America I humbly suggest they revisit the ACTUAL notion of what it means to be an American.
Joined: 9/15/2004
Msg: 55
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/25/2006 8:59:27 AM
my contention is that our sexual preferences of celibacy, monoagmy, etc. have a direct impact upon society at large. only one poster, Hezron, has seen the importance of looking beyond our immediate circumstance. as citizens, we are obligated to consider more than ourselves, our partners and the persons directly involved in our sexual activity. we should at least consider what we're saying about one another and about each person in our culture by only considering "My Life, by My Rules," which sadly every person here seems to agree with (sometimes under the guise of Libertarianism). we owe it to our civilization to consider how we're changing it. we owe it to our society, which we're dependent on, to consider what it means to the world around us that we all live My Life by My Rules.

sexual preference influences and is influenced by many things in our society. everyone knows the addage, "sex sells." what does that say about us? oh yeah, and the issue here is not (i)legality. let's try to understand the effect of our cumulative behavior. wikepedia says this about the family.

Although many people (including social scientists) have understood familial relationships in terms of "blood", many anthropologists have argued that one must understand the notion of "blood" metaphorically, and that many societies understand 'family' through other concepts rather than through genetics.
Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State".

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a United Nations document outlining basic human rights. in order for this document to say that the family needs "protection" implies that the institution can be threatened. the family is threatened today, not by "gay marriage," but by the effects of our transitory society. the family is an intimate cluster of friendships (blood or not) that are sustainable throughout a lifetime. traditionally, this close group would have been contrasted with the slightly larger group called a clan. today of course, we have no clan. we may live in apartments within close proximity to one another but we are hardly part of the same clan. without this network that humans have always enjoyed, we are left vulnerable in the world and quite literally all alone. perhaps living My Life by My Rules appears to be the only option when we're left abandoned without close, intimate relationships to sustain us.

but maybe the other option is to engage lifelong friendships and raise future generations to do the same. instead, we are letting ourselves be driven by consumerism, we are letting ourselves be programmed by commercials to sell ourselves in order to buy experiences that don't sustain us. the point is not to cast blame, but to recognize our current state of affairs regarding our sexuality and to do something about it.
Joined: 9/15/2004
Msg: 75
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/28/2006 10:07:40 AM
gothygeek wrote:

The funny thing is, you are so very concerned about being judged and persecuted because you don't agree when the only people I see judging anyone in this thread is you. Oh, and the married guy.[/qoute]

Please, PLEASE tell me that you realize that by making this statement (and all the others you've made) it makes you a big, ol hypocrite. You don't have a right to raise the "selfish" flag.


You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your gay marriage views (or any of your other views) all that seriously. Pot. Kettle. Black?

yes, you could say the pot is calling the kettle black couldn't you? it has not been my intention to come across as judgemental and i don't think i have. at the very least you could say i didn't resort to personal attacks, which is the only method you have (gothygeek) used for responding to my ideas. judge a person's concepts, not the person.

my point is that we should be aware that our sexual preferences have larger social causes and implications than the 'My Life, My Rules' philosophy accounts for. the philosophy permeated this thread but no one talks about it. i thought it may be beneficial to bring a new perspective and to point out that though everyone here differs on sexual preference, everyone justifies these prefences in Exactly the same way.

our society functions in such a way today that an increasing number of individuals find themselves uncomfortably isolated. without the support group that Wikepedia calls "family" we are forced to seek alternative support systems, such as this forum and the relationship(s) it leads us too.

our sexual preferences are a direct result of our transient society and the implications of these preferences have not yet been fully realized.
Joined: 9/15/2004
Msg: 76
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/28/2006 10:22:44 AM

Call me obtuse,but I really don't see the connection between consumerism and choices in sexuality.

taurus, you're not being obtuse, i just didn't present a complete thought. let me just throw some phrases out there that may make my point more clear,

-Victoria Secrets ads (almost any nationally syndicated commercial)
-brittany spears, jessica simpson, halee barrey (sp?)
-t.v. shows like Extra and Deal or No Deal
-50 cent, Mary J. Blige and even Ricky Martin

i'm not proposing that these icons should be censored in any way but i am suggesting that buying into them whole sale without consideration (which our kids are literally doing) does directly effect our sexual preference.

again, without the support group of the family, we are buying items to procure all the things that sustained relationships offer. we buy a nice car, skirt or hat in order to get attention which we otherwise lack.

when it comes to our sexual preference, we have a consumer mentality (people even ask for certain accessories) that's a slightly more complete thought for ya.

oh yeah, and sorry that my post addressed to gothygeek has a bad format. hopefully this one will look better.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 81
view profile
Celibacy and monogamy: The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/28/2006 8:09:50 PM
So....celibacy and monogamy - presently considered the 'socially acceptable' lifestyle....but does anyone even care WHY?

Historically- Prior to the invention of the major world religions - most cultures worshipped the Earth Mother. Rituals and sexual frenzied experiences were religious experiences particpated in by entire 'of age' cultures and considered a 'rite of passage'. In order to continue the evolutionary thread, priestesses would have mulitple parters since at this time men were not aware that they actually contributed to the creation process. Upon that revelation, you can trace the loss of religious power of the Earth Mother and see the introduction of the Sky Father and order to propose a new religious ground where the parties are equal in the process of creation a 'marriage' of the two occurred. As a result of the revelation that men contributed to the procreation process, men decided that it was important that a woman ONLY have 1 partner to make sure that it was HIS GENES and HIS GENES only. Instigated originally with the purpose of procreation only in mind, 'marriage' was created to be able to 'trace' parentage in many cultures. This IS an oversimplification of what occurred but it did happen prior to the invention of the major world religions.

The Reality of It - now had to convince their women that they should only have one partner and now that the entire male tribe was no longer responsible for all of the children in the tribe, the man now had to SUSTAIN and SUPPORT his new family WITHOUT help from the tribe. Now he was solo, demanding monogamy from his wife, burdened with having to support his new found belief practically and honestly...he just wanted to keep sleeping with other women...because really he kind of had it made before....sleep with the women...contribute his SHARE only to the maintenace and care of the offspring and ownership rights....BUT then he got to thinking....and this is where religion comes into play....hmmmm...what if the MAN gets to have mulitple partners so long as he can afford them? And this...if you read the bible, the Koran, Various historic Asian philosophies, religions is what happened...for a long time....UNTIL

He realized that hey! If I can OWN this WIFE...then maybe I can OWN this COW, this HORSE, this LAND...why stop at a wife at property when valuable is she compared to a COW if I won't let anyone else sleep with her?

So the invention of animal husbandry came along....the writing on the wall in pee marking your territory...and this led to farming cultures, trade, commercialization and as anyone who kind of knows history, led to our current capitalistic state.

BUT...there were a few things that changed the nature of the ownership laws....
1) Women..somehow...were still mysterious creatures....we confused men alot!
2) Men started to become now his children...particularly his daughters who he could let other men sleep with were now WORTH MORE THAN THE COW!
3) the Daughters...having that PRICE put on their heads...realized..'HEY...I am worth more than a COW AND I can give you more children who will help you earn land/cows/ships...etc.

So now that women once again were realizing that they too had worth....the rules of the game had to change once more....Ahhhhhh....what could men do to keep them tied to them?

AHA!! LOVE....the introduction of what we now know as 'ROMANTIC LOVE'....the Greeks...famous for so much of our history really had lots of time to think and they did that well...not that love hasn't existed since the dawn of human kind...just our ideas about it didn't really dawn until the Greeks put it on paper, sang it from streetcorners and produced some of the most beautiful love inspiring art works of all time. Inspiring, earth shattering...the labels of love as we know it were glued with the force of her passion.

Now how the hell does all this have to do with celibacy and monogamy you ask?

Welll...the concept of celibacy only originated with the advent of the major world religions - where the church could rape all the poor people by telling them that if you give us everything you have, if you live on nothing in this life...YOU WILL SURELY GO TO HEAVEN AND BE REWARDED IN HEAVEN...geez...what a sales pitch! It worked and the CONCEPT of going without and denying yourself - food, clothing, pleasure of any kind etc....yup....thank the sales pitch as I am going to heaven! The Dark ages were dark for a reason...denial of everything was how the church could have enough money to CONVERT all of those pagans that still existed. And since the church needed to convince all of those wealthy land owners sons that they shouldn't have kids who would inherit their wealth - they sold them on the celibacy pitch - no offspring, no lineage, DONATE TO THE CHURCH!

They reinforced this by tying it to the CONCEPT of LOVE - LOVE GOD, DONATE TO THE CHURCH, REPENT FOR YOUR SINS - oh was now a sin..they did that too.

Anyways..the truth of the matter is this
SEX IS A BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION!!!! Like eating, sleeping and shitting - you have to do it...evenutally your BODY needs it...wants it becuase it's function is to procreate - hardwired into our biological systems.

CELIBACY is like going on a HUNGER STRIKE - not good for your BODY but you are convinced -DENIAL IS HOLY....hmmm..sounds like the church no?

In NATURE...there are some animals that are monogamous and some animals that are polygamous - just depends on the species - I think that humans are genetically programmed and socially adapted to PREFER monogamy (remember the history - strong tag lines, great reinforcement tactics, catchy stories) but that each person is pre-disposed to being either one way or the other.

LOVE is not sex and sex is NOT LOVE - personally, I practice a monogamous sex life when I can, but I am not into denying any of my biological functions - it causes DIS-EASE.

As humans we have the choice to choose our higher long as two consenting adults agree to how thier relationship can best meet their biological need of sex - whether it be through a monogamous or a polygamous relationship is really their own CHOICE. But remember the church...yes...they didn't like the idea of choice very much.

Note: The historic account is an account - different histiorians tell different stories and The Church is really just a name representative of ALL religions which have perpetuated these ideas.

Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 82
view profile
Celibacy and monogamy: The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 8/28/2006 8:17:55 PM
PS...the historic account doesn't portray men in a very kind light - but it is not representative of all men and personally, knowing lots of amazing men in my life that I do, I am sure that there were lots of men who were not buying into any of it.

Joined: 7/22/2006
Msg: 112
view profile
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 10/15/2006 7:44:27 PM

I don't think she called anybody trash

The term trash came across as meaning a "trashy person" and not that she felt like rubbish to be thrown out.

Although it does not appear to be meant to be harmful to anyone, it is an unfortunately prejudicial remark that reveals the effects that the culture has on people that believe their morals have been completely created by themselves, which is never true.




human beings still are forced to live within the paradox of setting limits, even if they know the limits they set aren't enforceable entirely, or even always appropriate.

This is a problem, though, when the limits are paternalistic. i.e. when they are imposed upon consensual and unharmful behavior. No government or soceity has the right to force you to avoid behavior that they believe is harmful to YOURSELF. But any behavior that is harmful to others, is fair game for soceities limits. Consensual adult sex is beyond righteous regulation.
Joined: 7/22/2006
Msg: 117
view profile
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 10/16/2006 11:39:51 PM
Metallic_Blue your return was quite well said, and you almost completed your argument. This wasn't as strong as you'd hope:

Ah but you'll say "None of them are conscentual, but how about a doctor and a terminally medical ill patient relationship, and their right to have the patients life ended willingly to avoid suffering. A consentual act between a trained medical specialist and the patient, yes? Yet it's illegal still in one place and legal in another.

I think it would have been more effective to use a consensual example that clearly offers no benefits to the consenting parties. I think euthanasia should be legal when a consenting adult can be proved to be of sound mind and body. The fact that it isn't in some places doesn't change the moral rightousness of it. And I suppose I am being a moralist, because I think people SHOULD have liberties and rights to do as they please. I suppose that's a moral stance. I'm not saying I'd kill myself or want my loved ones to, if we were terminally ill and wanted to avoid suffering. But I think any person that wants to, that's their business, not mine. Even if that person IS my loved one. I mean, I would talk with the person and be devastated, but I would understand, I think.

What I would have used is this:

What about the two consenting adults where one consents to be eaten by another one?

Which would really make me think about it. The big problem is that you usually don't find out about this kind of activity until its too late, I imagine. But instead of making laws against consenual digestion of each other, what we should instead do is go along with the laws against murder and desecration of a corpse, etc. that already exist. To stop this kind of activity, we would only have to intervene and lock either or both people up for insanity, if we could catch them. Our soceity's measurement tools for determining if someone is insane would undoubtedly grab them both.

No one quelled the spread of AIDS or Syphillis by making sodomy illegal, or by making sex between unmarried people, or even non-monogomous sex illegal. We affected the spread of AIDS and syphillis, et al. in a positive way, through education and lots and lots of condoms.

As for addicts, there are always going to be addicts. If someone is an addict, they'll find something to be addicted to. If they have to get it illegally, all the worse for anyone that gets in their way. Making drugs illegal may lower someone's statistics of addicts, but has little to do with the actual negative effects of drug users on soceity. The addicts in Amsterdam are pushers of harder (illegal drugs) and a few extra people that can afford softer drugs in Amsterdam but not in America. Drug violence is sometimes reported at much lower levels in Amsterdam. I've never heard of it over the drugs that are legal there. I'm sure it does happen, but much less often then when alcohol is involved. Finally, their prison systems are probably (I've never looked into it) much less crowded with drug offenders than in the US.

Wearing safety equipment when operating motor vehicles? That one used to trouble me, but I think I've moved towards: within reason. It's not necessarily a person's right to operate machinery. Like you said, if you're drunk you can't. If you're drunk you still have the right not to be raped. You still have the right to an attorney. You still have the right to your privacy. But you don't have the right to drive. Therefore, driving must not be a right, and if you are going to operate the equipment, insurance companies, motor vehicle manufacturers, and even other drivers should have the right to require you to use certain safety equipment, because it can affect other people through insurance coverage and lawsuits. Truly, insurance companies could just refuse coverage if you didn't wear a motorcycle helmut, or you didn't wear a seatbelt. That would go A LOT further in changing people's habits than setting laws about it. And would be the only thing that's truly fair from a "rights" standoint.

Sexual rights? This topic is if someone has the right to have more than one sexual partner at a time. Why would anyone have the right to decide that if they weren't having sex with said person?

That's what gets me. "Moralists" are so concerned with what is right for other people, that they seem to have no concept of whether or not they have the right to even say anything, or if they infringing on someone else's rights by invading their privacy, being libelous, etc. etc. So what could give these people the "right" to set rules on such things? God? And if said person doesn't believe in this God it doesn't matter, right? The issue seems so pedantic to me. The topic itself is interesting, because people take it into social context, which is different than laws, but not as much as people think. People's prejudices against said person who has non-monogamous sex stem from the same fallacies that would make laws against it (or any kind of sex) outragous. People's reasons for not wanting it themselves (whether influenced by religious axioms or not) are fine and wonderful but no different and no more rightous than said person who DOES want it for said person's self.

To put it concisely: I don't want my neighbors in my bedroom (or any bedroom I wander into) unless they're hot and open-minded.
Joined: 6/21/2010
Msg: 120
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 3/31/2012 7:12:57 PM
I did the whole friends with benefits before it was a emotionally roller-coaster with hurt and drama. Never again am I doing it. I prefer monogamy
Joined: 10/15/2010
Msg: 121
view profile
Celibacy and monoagmy:The only acceptible lifestyles?
Posted: 3/31/2012 10:22:23 PM
>For you moralist types, does this mean that celibacy and monagamy are the only
For you moralist types, does this mean that celibacy and monagamy are the only acceptible moral lifestyles with regards to sex?>

Yes..but we're not perfect people we just strive to be perfect in certain areas. Of course..sometimes we're hitting 90% not 100%.

>My problem with this line of thinking is that there are people who you really DON'T want to be in relationships and yet they still have high sex drives. You're condemning these people to celibacy or you're saying they're immoral or so seriously dysfunctional as if they need some kind of therapy to "turn them around". <

Not sure what u meant by this... I think "like" needs to be with "like." A more open minded person needs to be with a more open minded person. A person with a more old fashioned view needs to be with a person with a more old fashioned view.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >