quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'll bet . I should add that I am myself a newlywed in a decidedly monogomous arrangement, so this talk is of course hypothetical.
Fair enough :-). It's just a little weird for me to read this discussion cast all in hypotheticals when I'm used to seeing it so grounded in practicalities. Roughly half my friends are in polyamorous relationships. I'm well aware that what this mostly means is that the people I know personally are a very skewed subset of the general population, but I still see "We're bring it back!!!" in the thread title and go "Huh? It needs bringing back? I didn't know it went anywhere."
And like I said earlier, the vast majority of poly people I know have no interest in seeing plural marriage legalized. (They would like it -decriminalized-, in that they don't want to fear having their kids taken away by CPS just because they're living as a triad, but that's a somewhat different issue.) So reading a bunch of monogamous people debate whether or not it should be is. . .bemusing, to say the least.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mind, the specific desire of "I'm a guy and I want bi female partners who are involved only with each other and me" is. . .umm, both not infrequently expressed by male newcomers and not looked upon favorably by much of the community, for a number of reasons.
Why? I know it is a cliche of porn and adolescent male fantasy, but I don't know what kind of community debut is considered more favorable, and for what reasons.
(Just out of curiosity.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that it is because it is a cliche of adolescent male fantasy.
People looking to undulge their fantasy - and often not even their fantasy - rather than build relaionships.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK...so is it more likely to be someone who has unrealistic expectations and won't treat partners with appropriate respect?
I mean, I'd think most people in polyamorous relationships have a preference for the size and gender makeup of the...team, and would prefer fidelity within the relationship to promiscuity.
So "I'd like to be with two girls in an exclusive relationship" doesn't, to me, seem essentially different from "My wife and I would like to have a long term relationship with another male."
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Herblay: Of course marriage is supposed to be long term. Unfortunately, for far too many people these days, it's just a fancy form of dating with legal benefits.
Xavier: Because guys looking for two bi chicks are so very common compared to bi chicks looking for a guy. The gender balance is skewed.
Ambyr: Are you in the bay area? Do I know you?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Xavier: Because guys looking for two bi chicks are so very common compared to bi chicks looking for a guy. The gender balance is skewed.
Yeah, like I said, not a surprise at all that this is the case. If I was a bisexual myself the MMF might appeal to me as well, but I'm pretty far along towards the straight axis. Not all the way there, but close enough that I wouldn't be interested in a MMF relationship.
The desire for a MFF and no outsiders with me isn't so much adolescent fantasy (though to be honest with myself this element does exists), but more that I think a relationship with three members could work very well in practice, and that's the only configuration in which I'd be attracted to both other members. When I've fantasized about such a relationship, the fantasies aren't sexual ones.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
MMF is far less desirable from an evolutionary standpoint as MFF. You're basically looking at a man who gets to spread his seed around with two women versus a woman who may not even know who the father is unless they do DNA testing.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chrstine: better for an income point of view. Men tend to make more money. The offspring that ARE produced would have an economic advantage.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The desire for a MFF and no outsiders with me isn't so much adolescent fantasy (though to be honest with myself this element does exists), but more that I think a relationship with three members could work very well in practice, and that's the only configuration in which I'd be attracted to both other members. When I've fantasized about such a relationship, the fantasies aren't sexual ones.
I was in a relationship like that for a while. It eventually crashed and burned, but before things got bad, we had some really, really nice times, many of which had nothing to do with the sexual stuff.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK...so is it more likely to be someone who has unrealistic expectations and won't treat partners with appropriate respect?
That's certainly part of it, yes.
quote:I mean, I'd think most people in polyamorous relationships have a preference for the size and gender makeup of the...team, and would prefer fidelity within the relationship to promiscuity.
That's. . .hmm. I realize I've sort of set myself up as Spokesperson for Polyamory here, which is a huge set of shoes to fill, given the diversity of the community. (This book provides a pretty good overview of the diverse kinds of relationship structures you'll find, if you want more info than my ramblings.)
But, to respond to your comment. . .no. Polyfidelitous relationships (i.e., those in which a set number of people--3, 4, 5, whatever--are involved with each other and only each other [though each member is not necessarily involved with each other member]) certainly exist, but they're not the majority.
And so part of why coming in as a straight guy looking for two bi girls evokes some negative reactions is precisely the opposite of what you've said: many people in the polyamorous community frown on having "a preference for the size and gender makeup of the. . .team." First, that's because for a lot of poly people (though as noted above, not all), you're not forming one "team"--you're forming a web. You're married to one person and dating another, who may be dating two other people, one of whom may be married to someone else. . .and so on, and so forth. To say upfront "well, I want to sleep with two women, and it's okay if they sleep with each other, but I don't want them sleeping with any other men" is going to come across to many poly people as 1) excessively restrictive of your partners' dating lives and 2) bluntly, sexist.
Even for those whose preferences do lean towards polyfidelity, saying upfront that you want to be in a relationship of precisely three (each of whom must be sexually involved with the other two) can be seen as a sign that you have a very clear picture in your head of what -you- want, and are just trying to find people to force into those predetermined roles. It's a bit like a monogamous person who says they're only open to dating six foot tall blondes who love kayaking, hate canoeing, and want to have four kids in six years. It's good to know what you want, but if you definite it too tightly, you're not leaving yourself a lot of leeway to find an actual human being who fills all criteria--particularly in the poly community, where the dating pool starts off small to begin with.
I'm not saying polyfi triads don't exist--they do--but so do polyfi Vs, in which, say, both women are sexually involved with the man, but have no interest in each other (either because they're straight, or because they just. . .aren't interested in each other), or quads in which both men are involved with both women, but the same-gender pairs aren't. Insisting upfront that all members must be sexually involved is, as noted above, often going to be taken as an indication that what really draws you is the porn fantasy--because it's perfectly possible to have a stable relationship among three (or more) people without that.
Another common (and often poorly received) scenario is a couple coming in looking for a second bisexual women to "complete" them. This article sums up the problems with that pretty well.
Does that help? I'm generally sort of leery to discuss this stuff on Hatrack because I don't want to accidentally step over community lines about what constitutes "adult" material.
[eta: fixing my mucked up forum code]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ambyr: Are you in the bay area? Do I know you?
No, and almost certainly not, although I suspect we wouldn't need all six degrees of separation to find a link.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Chrstine: better for an income point of view. Men tend to make more money. The offspring that ARE produced would have an economic advantage.
This may be an advantage for the female or even the children in the relationship, but what are the men getting out of it? The income they do produce may not even be going to support their own child. I'm not saying there's no advantage at all, just that the configuration seems unlikely in the first place from an evolutionary standpoint.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That answers my question very nicely, ambyr. Thanks. (FWIW, though I have no real say, I think you stayed well within Hatrack standards, at least the de facto standards.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This may be an advantage for the female or even the children in the relationship, but what are the men getting out of it? The income they do produce may not even be going to support their own child. I'm not saying there's no advantage at all, just that the configuration seems unlikely in the first place from an evolutionary standpoint.
Depending on their culture, they may have a very different notion of what "their own child" means. See, as I mentioned earlier I think, some of the anthropological research on Tibetan polyandry-- this article has some interesting stuff, including this passage:
quote:There is no attempt to link children biologically to particular brothers, and a brother shows no favoritism toward his child even if he knows he is the real father because, for example, his other brothers were away at the time the wife became pregnant. The children, in turn, consider all of the brothers as their father and treat them equally, even if they know who is their real father.
posted
ambyr: That's an interesting idea. I'll need to read the article more fully when I have time, but just glancing at it the thing that occurs to me is that biological *brothers* are sharing a wife, so they do have some genetic stake in the offspring. Would that translate if two unrelated men shared a wife?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The only reason I can see for banning it would be if it DID become so popular (and one-sided) that a population of men would basically become hopeless and alone.
I agree that this would be a serious problem in countries/cultures where equal numbers of men and women are living to marriageable age. A large surplus of unmarried men with no hope of ever finding wives is not a good thing to have. I seem to recall that for most cultures that have practiced polygyny, the males had a much higher death rate than females--e.g. in the Zulu culture, a man couldn't marry until he'd slain 10 enemies in battle. So in those cases it made plenty of sense for the surviving men to have multiple wives. I don't know if that higher male death rate is true for every culture that practices it though.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The desire for a MFF and no outsiders with me isn't so much adolescent fantasy (though to be honest with myself this element does exists), but more that I think a relationship with three members could work very well in practice, and that's the only configuration in which I'd be attracted to both other members. When I've fantasized about such a relationship, the fantasies aren't sexual ones.
I was in a relationship like that for a while. It eventually crashed and burned, but before things got bad, we had some really, really nice times, many of which had nothing to do with the sexual stuff.
In other words, you're talking about people being good friends with one another. That's not polygamy. It is perfectly legal to become friends with whomever one wishes.
In my view, polygamy may occasionally work, but never as well as a monogamous relationship would.
In any MFF relationship, there is an inevitable issue of jealousy. For a well-known MFF relationship that turned out to be a disaster, look at the Jacob-Rachel-Leah marriage. (Please note that I'm not citing the Bible for religious reasons this time; it's just a handy example to use) Even without the cliched sixty-year-old-gets-in-bed-with-a-bunch-of-thirteen-year-olds stereotype about polygamy, marital problems vary exponentially with the number of people who are married to each other. The problem is probably even worse in a supposed MMF relationship.
Which leads to another thing that makes polygamy a bad idea. The differences between the sexes are real when it comes to sex. Men make millions of sperm every day, whereas women only ready one egg every month. Men (in a polygamous relationship) can theoretically have as many children at the same time as he has women to carry the children, whereas women can only have one child at a time, and can't expect to take part in more than one child every nine months. Women are put at an inherent disadvantage in a polygamous relationship.
The real problem is that while everyone is equal, everyone is still different (that's a good thing for society, a bad thing for polygamy). When there are more people in an equation, there is a much greater chance of one person rising to a state of dominance. Whether it's a man who dominates the relationship in a MFF trio, or a woman who is the center of a MMF trio, the two others will eventually look at one another as rivals, and that can open the door for favoritism or even abuse.
The "good" things that are said about polygamy - from having third parties to mediate to financial support - these can be done with good friends who are willing to look out for each other and confide in each other. Nobody ought to have any problem with a spouse having trusted friends. I do have a problem with people having more than one spouse, because just about any combination, even independent of gender, will likely lead to an inequality between who is loved that will leave someone better off in a monogamous marriage.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
C3PO: Maybe you're right in the majority of cases. I could argue that monogamous relationships would never work, that it isn't worth the time because half end up in divorce.
But, even if only one poly "couple" ends up making it, ends up happy, isn't it worth it? It's the struggle that makes us human, isn't it? It's possible to have health, happy poly marriages --- just like it's possible to have traditional ones. It just may be a little harder.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aaaactually, C3po, in one of the MMF relationships in my little circle of friends, the MM stuck together and slowly pushed the F away.
Being the odd woman out doesn't always give one power. If there's a big imbalance of who loves whom, things will fall apart. Interpersonal relationships are more complicated than stereotypes and certainly difficult to predict.
And I think you do a disservice to Xavier in referring to his dream relationship as "friends." If everyone in the triad is romantically involved, they are more than just friends.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The only reason I can see for banning it would be if it DID become so popular (and one-sided) that a population of men would basically become hopeless and alone.
I agree that this would be a serious problem in countries/cultures where equal numbers of men and women are living to marriageable age. A large surplus of unmarried men with no hope of ever finding wives is not a good thing to have. I seem to recall that for most cultures that have practiced polygyny, the males had a much higher death rate than females--e.g. in the Zulu culture, a man couldn't marry until he'd slain 10 enemies in battle. So in those cases it made plenty of sense for the surviving men to have multiple wives. I don't know if that higher male death rate is true for every culture that practices it though.
As a side note of this, I found interesting when a few years back I came across census data for the LDS church at about the time when the church started practicing polygamy publicly. The population was heavily skewed toward female, if I remember correctly about 3 F to every 1 M. Under those circumstances, without polygamy most women will not have an opportunity to have children. About a generation later when the LDS population was more closely gender balanced, the church banned polygamy (though this was never the stated reason).
Among FLDS groups that continue the practice of polygamy gender imbalance is a very serious problem. Since these communities have nearly equal numbers of male and female children, many of them excommunicate and abandon their sons about the time they reach adulthood. Its a very cruel and a very big problem.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the main question that raises is why the LDS church had such skewed population numbers.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most organized religions in America skew female.
However, I don't think Rabbit's data is correct. The population wasn't off that much, and it definitely wasn't a 3:1 ratio. I'd like to see some data from a reputable source about it, but I don't have time to look it up right now.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the legal extermination order for Mormons was absolutely horrendous, I don't think enough Mormons were killed to affect the population ratio for the next fifty years.
posted
Mine coincide. I think any consenting adults should be able to make any marriage contract they like.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Most organized religions in America skew female.
However, I don't think Rabbit's data is correct. The population wasn't off that much, and it definitely wasn't a 3:1 ratio. I'd like to see some data from a reputable source about it, but I don't have time to look it up right now.
The data I was looking at was census data for Winter Quarters, Council Bluff, Mormon Battalion, and other areas during (1946-1947). I don't remember the exact numbers but I remember being very surprised that women outnumbered men by more than 2 to 1.
I doubt that had much to do with the extermination proclamation. I find the numbers pretty reasonable considering that everywhere I've ever lived female converts to the church have out numbered male converts by about 2 to 1. In 1847, just 17 years after the formation of the church nearly every member was a convert. The number also matches well with numbers I've seen for many of the later pioneer companies. I suspect that over the following 50 years as a larger percent of the church were 2nd generation LDS, that the numbers even out although even today the number of active women in the church is greater than the number of active men (at least in all the wards and branches I've been in).
[ June 17, 2009, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The numbers may be true for the locations you mentioned, but those locations were not the beginning of polygamy nor the places it was primarily practiced.
For a good look at historical Utah polygamy, I recommend More Wives than One. It's fabulous, takes a historian's point of view, and relies on primary sources.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, do you have any theories as to why the number of female converts would outnumber men, either in the US or globally?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regular spiritual nourishment and the creation and maintenance of social ties - two things organized religion can be magnificent at - are culturaly seen as the purvue of women. Men need and enjoy them just as much, but the responsibility for creating and maintaining them is placed more on women.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, do you suppose men might have been excluded from the census data because they were abroad proselytizing?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: Hmmm, those two attributes do not seem unique to Mormons though. Are converts to Christianity (or religion) in general also similarly unbalanced to such a degree (e.g. 2:1 in Rabbits example)? And if not, what makes women particularly attracted to Mormonism as opposed to other religions?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Out of curiosity, do you have any theories as to why the number of female converts would outnumber men, either in the US or globally?
I can speak with experience for modern day Korea. I suspect this is the case in Japan as well.
In Korea it is easily 2:1 ratio. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 4:1 ratio. There were two branches I served in with no male members. Not only were we missionaries, but we did all the ordinances that required the priesthood--like blessing and passing the sacrament.
The two biggest obstacles for guys were time and the Word of Wisdom. Guys frankly had to work too much. Working Sundays was very common, and drinking was practically required to keep your job.
It just wasn't socially acceptable if you had a job to not go out with your boss and co workers for a few drinks after work. Since the roles of marriage are more traditional over there then here, you would have families that accepted the gospel but the husband couldn't get baptized.
I think you also had a lot of young women who got baptized because of the young handsome men proselyting. Altho "Flirt to Convert" was specifically frowned upon, every missionary I talked with knew someone who did it and was very familiar with the term.
That might be just a Korean experience tho. However, when I visited branches and wards in Japan the ratio seemed consistent with Korea.
We all saw where that ratio created social problems for female Korean members. They took the counsel of the prophets very seriously and would only marry in the temples, but there were no guys to marry. They were advised to not marry foreigners because they needed to build the stakes strong in Korea.
The consequence of that is large wards of older women who never married who were often upset with missionaries because they saw too many of their friends marry the Americans and leave Korea.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The Rabbit, do you suppose men might have been excluded from the census data because they were abroad proselytizing?
Possible, but I doubt that would have made much of a difference. Like I said, it's been several years since I saw this census data but my memory is that including in the 500 men who were in the Mormon Battalion at the time did not signigicantly narrow the gap so I doubt adding a few hundred men who were abroad as missionaries would have evened it out significantly.
I remember the data because I found it so surprising that the church gender distribution at the time was so lopsided. It was just one point in time and I found it interesting in light of polygamy although this was not a point made in the article in which I found this census data.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: katharina: Hmmm, those two attributes do not seem unique to Mormons though. Are converts to Christianity (or religion) in general also similarly unbalanced to such a degree (e.g. 2:1 in Rabbits example)?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Most organized religions in America skew female.
Which certainly agrees both with statistics I've seen and with my personal experience.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I thought she was disagreeing with the 3:1 ratio for converts historically rather than the 2:1 number for current converts. (I could easily be wrong)
Anyways, the knowledge that the ratio seems consistent for Jews is definitely helpful. That would seem to back-up parts of lem's theory about social restrictions discouraging conversion unequally, especially with food and drink restrictions.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: katharina: Hmmm, those two attributes do not seem unique to Mormons though. Are converts to Christianity (or religion) in general also similarly unbalanced to such a degree (e.g. 2:1 in Rabbits example)? And if not, what makes women particularly attracted to Mormonism as opposed to other religions?
I can't speak about converts to other religions, but I have noticed whenever I attend another church that a disproportionate majority of attendees are women. If anything, the Mormon church (at least today) seems to be more gender balanced than many other churchs. I've known lots of families where the wife attended church services regularly and the husband did not and very few vice a versa. I have no idea why, but at least in America and Europe, women seem more attracted to organized religion and communal worship than men.
It may be a Christian thing. A couple years ago, I spent a week meditating in a Benedictine monastery in Germany. The Christian contemplation class was > 80% women. The same monastery also hosted a Zen meditation course, it maybe a little over 50% men.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've known lots of families where the wife attended church services regularly and the husband did not and very few vice a versa.
We're one of those weird vice a versa families but I do agree that most of the people I know are the other way around. It makes it particularly difficult for me to find social networks and until recently, I tried religious groups just because I couldn't find anything else. Finally, in the last year or so, I've managed to find some friends who either aren't Christian or who don't care that I'm not.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Christine, how'd you find them? My wife needs to do something similar.
Not easily, and it's even worse for me because I can't drive (legally blind). The one I'd consider my best friend at the moment was someone I met through my son's kid's day out program. Her son is almost exactly his same age and when she found out I walked to the kid's day out program rain or shine, she offered to give me a ride on bad weather days. Of course, at first you talk about superficial stuff but gradually we worked our way up to doing play dates together, talking about books, and finally talking about religion. It's been great to talk to someone who is non-judgmental about both my doubts and my beliefs.
The other way I've met a few people is through a book club that a neighbor invited me to join 3 years ago. They're not into science fiction and fantasy, which is a bummer, but it has helped me to expand my literary horizons. That group has changed a bit over the years, which is a good thing. We're now down to a core group that I think is fairly open-minded.
What I really want to do next is find some people to play cards/games with.
So I guess to make a long story short (too late) you find some interests you have that are non-religious and make that a focus in your attempt to meet people....hobby groups, children, that sort of thing.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, the only part that I can find that addresses specifically the gender ratio of converts is in the pdf for chapter 2,
Specifically:
quote:With respect to other demographic characteristics, the Landscape Survey reveals few major demographic differences in the rates of religious change. For instance, men are only slightly more likely to switch affiliation than women (45% vs. 42%).
It also seems that women are slightly more likely to convert to other similar religions while men are slightly more likely to convert to completely different religions.
posted
Someone brought up jealousy earlier, and that is a large problem that polyamoury type relationships deal with, but it's not an uncontrollable emotion, and only when not dealt with in a conscious manner, do problems arise it seems.
Once I realized that my feelings were out of insecurities that I was harboring about myself, the relationship, the future, it allowed me to start dealing with them in a conscious manner. My boyfriend and I acknowledged that we went from the gay closet to committed relationship, without any in-between to experiment, and learn about ourselves sexually and emotionally.
Despite the rocky road, I can firmly say that opening up our relationship has been and continues to be an amazing growth experience. We're both learning more about ourselves, how we tick, etc, and the kinds of people we want to be and the communities we want to hang out with.
Self improvement guru Steve Pavlina announced at the beginning of this year that he and his wife were exploring polyamory, and he included a variety of good resources into the subject.
My boyfriend and I are currently reading "The Ethical Slut" which really makes some good points. They raise an interesting point about the word "slut" and how it defines a promiscuous woman, but the same type of activity for a man is labeled as being a "stud" and looked on more favorably. There's an incredible amount of conditioning that we have, that really doesn't get questioned, and as we're exploring a more open relationship, we're learning a lot and beginning to question some of those beliefs that we were raised with.
It isn't for everyone to be sure, but I wouldn't say it's worse or better than monogamy. I'd recommend The Ethical Slut or Steve Pavlina's blog if anyone is interested.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: There's an incredible amount of conditioning that we have, that really doesn't get questioned,
This is untrue. There has been lots and lots of questioning of the reasons we involve ourselves in monogamous relationships and the reasons there is a double standard. Among other things, there's never a question who the mom is. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Promiscuous men are not looked upon universally favorably. It is also not true that the double standard doesn't get questioned.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Promiscuous men are not looked upon universally favorably.
This is a good point, although I have definitely detected a double standard. It's more subtle -- even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
What I see as being frowned upon is overly promiscuous men, the kind that never gets into a relationship for longer than a few weeks or worse, just likes one nighters, and worst of all -- unfaithful men.
As far as open relationships go: I knew one guy in college who was into that. He joked that he had a harem....wasn't too far off. Technically, the openness would have gone both ways but in reality he just attracted several women with low self-esteem and convinced them that it was a good idea until finally, one of them put her foot down and made him choose.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
Not my religious circles. Not at all. That is utterly foreign to my experience.
The double standard is terrible, but wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical and moral sexual behavior in everyone rather than making it expected of no one?
quote:even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
Not my religious circles. Not at all. That is utterly foreign to my experience.
I figured you would say that, because you've indicated this in the past and I'm glad you've found such a community. But yours is not the only religious circle in the country. I lived in three states (all in the Bible Belt) as a single woman and joined a number of religious groups seeking acceptance and friendship. There has always been a subtle double standard.
quote: The doulbe standard is terrible, but wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical and moral sexual behavior in everyone rather than making it expected of no one? [/QB]
I don't know....are your standards the same as mine? Whose standards are we going to encourage? Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I should add that I am myself a newlywed in a decidedly monogomous arrangement, so this talk is of course hypothetical. 
