Marriage Customs & Sex.

You'll have a different take on this depending on where you were raised, your beliefs and culture, your ethnic origin, life experience and age.

To some couples swinging, Which takes many forms feels natural and is part of a healthy sex life and healthy marriage.

Some People are weird.
weird Couples: bdsm and other stuff josef fritzl would no doubt approve of keeps them happy.

Polygamy: Openly non monogamous. The Greeks gave us The word Polygamy to describe any form of marriage where any partner has more than one spouse. This form of marriage has strategic benefits.

(polygamy is not where you start seeing another person before breaking up with your ex, that's infidelity.)

Affairs are relationships outside of The Marriage Contract which may or may not involve intercourse.

Lovers & Mistresses; Are Approved extra marital liaisons

The method of taking a lover or mistress varies
-in some cases the couple might participate in a threesome/foursome/swinging event/ orgy whatever. And by Mutual consent one partner will 'go steady'

-sometimes one partner will seek approval obtain it and either provide continuous updates or only pass on essential information such as mileage, expenses, name, occupation and age of the individual.

Mistresses/Lovers resolve hardware issues.
They balance out uneven sex drives.

Often A partner will play matchmaker and introduce their spouse to a lover/mistress. This may or may not be at the request of the other partner.

Mistresses/Lovers and Affairs may help couples fulfill unrealised sexual fantasies, helping relieve tension in the bedroom.
Example: wife pursuing a little/or a lot of lesbian side action.

Surrogates. Some Couples have difficulty conceiving. The earliest known surrogates are detailed in The Jewish Tanakh.

A surrogate is not A Lover or A Fighter. But a Mistress or a Lover can be a surrogate. As could the third person in an Affair who would cease to be an outsider having received two thumbs up.

The most common form of Surrogates Throughout history and in Modern Times involve the wife recruiting a suitable piece of ass for reproduction purposes.

Surrogates are often Paid, But they are not Prostitutes.

Your Thoughts Is Monogamy Practical?
And is universal Monogamy Possible.

Sure monogamy is practical, unless you think that all the married couples out there have at least one cheating spouse. Universal monogamy is impossible, we can't even universally produce people that don't want to kill themselves.

each to there own

Originally posted by shiv

Surrogates are often Paid, But they are not Prostitutes.

Your Thoughts Is Monogamy Practical?
And is universal Monogamy Possible.

Saying a paid surrogate is not a prostitute is certainly stretching it. Anyone engaging in sex for compensation is engaging in some form of prostitution and this would have to include surrogates, porn actors/actresses and even people who are in relationships or marry for money.

Monogamy is not advantageous for either gender from an evolutionary standpoint. Given the number of people who "stray", monogamy is not a normal state for our species but something imposed by religious mores.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Monogamy is not advantageous for either gender from an evolutionary standpoint. Given the number of people who "stray", monogamy is not a normal state for our species but something imposed by religious mores.

The K-strategy is just as useful to an species as r-strategy and lifetime mating has been found in several different animals. Marriage is certainly a religious imposition, but there's no particular reason to think that monogamy is. In fact for intelligent long lived animals (like humans) using more elements of the K-strategy is of great advantage.

No to mention that nothing is to the evolutionary advantage of a gender, evolutionary advantages apply only to the species.

Not another Tiger Woods thread.

Originally posted by shiv
Some People are weird.
weird Couples: bdsm and other stuff josef fritzl would no doubt approve of keeps them happy.

why is bdsm weird?

actual research find no real differences in personality between people who are interested in bdsm and those who are not.

Originally posted by shiv
Polygamy: Openly non monogamous. The Greeks gave us The word Polygamy to describe any form of marriage where any partner has more than one spouse. This form of marriage has strategic benefits.

(polygamy is not where you start seeing another person before breaking up with your ex, that's infidelity.)

maybe, but the term has become associated with inherent patriarchy, and now generally refers to the marriage of a single man to many women. Polyandry, the marriage of a single female to many men, is less associated with matriarchy, though I can't think of any good examples coming from a "westernesque" male dominant society.

The modern term "Polyamoury" is used to describe consensual relationships between more than 2 people.

Originally posted by shiv
Your Thoughts Is Monogamy Practical?

depends, practical is a relative term.

Originally posted by shiv
And is universal Monogamy Possible.

obviously not. There are exceptionally few universal human behaviours, and none relate to things as abstract as "marriage" and "fidelity"

PS btw, did you just start taking some liberal arts/anthropology classes or do some reading in that area?

Originally posted by inimalist
why is bdsm weird?

actual research find no real differences in personality between people who are interested in bdsm and those who are not.

So if I hire illegal Mexican day-laborers to choke me in the bathroom to the point of near black-out, I wouldn't be some sort of "weirdo"? Awesome!

*goes to Home Depot*

not necessarily

wanting a strong mexican male to choke you out for sexual gratification doesn't mean you would necessarily have any abnormal personality characteristics.

weird is a subjective term. You may still think that is weird, I am just questioning why, when people who like that sort of thing are otherwise "normal" and fairly common

Originally posted by inimalist
why is bdsm weird?

actual research find no real differences in personality between people who are interested in bdsm and those who are not.

Different people mean different things when they say BDSM (the acronym standing for six different behaviors doesn't help). Liking the fuzzy handcuffs is technically a behavior that falls within BDSM as much as something thing Goreanism, but it seems likely people would see the "heavy stuff" as BDSM while just seeing the rest as kinky. Plenty of people also conflate sadism and masochism as pertains to BDSM with the clinical terms.

Or, uh, so I heard.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Different people mean different things when they say BDSM (the acronym standing for six different behaviors doesn't help). Liking the fuzzy handcuffs is technically a behavior that falls within BDSM as much as something thing Goreanism, but it seems likely people would see the "heavy stuff" as BDSM while just seeing the rest as kinky. Plenty of people also conflate sadism and masochism as pertains to BDSM with the clinical terms.

Or, uh, so I heard.

I've done lit searches before, and there is essentially no real data to go on. Studies from the mid 2000s were "surprisingly" finding no link between sexual sadism and the desire to harm people in real life, and that sexual masochists didn't like being oppressed.

I find it really odd that the conversations about personal sexuality have produced the LGBTQ2 acronym and, allegedly, 5 distinct genders (though 7 might be more appropriate), yet have discovered little to nothing about sexuality that has nothing to do with gender preference.

Its a topic that, I suppose, can't help but be politicized. Amusingly, the best critique of it came from a DC comic book, where the character Starfire was flying around naked and a local boy saw her. She mused about how Americans were so obsessed with sex but at the same time so afraid of sexuality. I don't know, I know its not a new argument, but I found the scene to be poignant. Lol, I'll stop before I rant totally off the subject of your post.

Originally posted by inimalist
I find it really odd that the conversations about personal sexuality have produced the LGBTQ2 acronym and, allegedly, 5 distinct genders (though 7 might be more appropriate), yet have discovered little to nothing about sexuality that has nothing to do with gender preference.

What's the 2 stand for?

Originally posted by King Kandy
LGBTQ2?

What's the 2 stand for?

Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transsexual, Questioning, Queer.

Though questioning is vague and queer is redundant.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What's the 2 stand for?

"2 spirit"

it is a Native American concept that basically comes down to having aspects of both. It is a little different than bi-sexuality in that the person actually feels as though there are 2 sides to the sexuality, rather than a single sexuality that encompasses attraction to both genders.

I didn't make the acronym though, so I really wont defend it, but whoever is "defining" these things is apparently more interested in personal experiences of sexuality than discrete categorization.

I have no data to support any of this, but I would suppose that there may be no empirical difference between bisexuality and "2 spirit" aside from the personal interpretations such distinctions allow a person to make. Not that these processes aren't important or of interest to some people, it is just too open for ambiguity for my taste.

The whole thing then is: Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transsexual, Queer, 2 Spirit. It has always struck me as odd that asexuality is not included as well, though they aren't a political identity group in the same way.

EDIT: and just for fun, Genders: Male in male body, male in female body, female in female body, female in male body, neither in either body, transgender/two spirit/both in either body (I guess that is only 6, but the last category can be broken down pretty much on an individual basis, as no two people will have similar definitions of being "both" genders).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transsexual, Questioning, Queer.

Though questioning is vague and queer is redundant.

shit, i might have missed a Q...

queer is redundant insofar as we can label its behaviour as being similar to other categories. The self-definition of queer, though ambiguous, does offer some explanation of how certain people experience sexuality. Its not something I can defend, as I shrink away from these "flowery" definitions of personal cognition and behaviour, but from a less objective view, it might hold merit.

"scientifically", bi-curious or bi-sexual probably cover most things described by BTQQ2, and hetero- or homosexual covering the rest. However, to people who defines themselves as transsexual, there is likely a huge gap between them and someone who is bisexual, and vice versa.

Actually, thinking about it, T might be its own thing, as there are many heterosexual transsexuals.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've done lit searches before, and there is essentially no real data to go on. Studies from the mid 2000s were "surprisingly" finding no link between sexual sadism and the desire to harm people in real life, and that sexual masochists didn't like being oppressed.

Doesn't really surprise me. Sex is highly emotional which would seem to disconnect it from the outside world. There's also the issue of comparability: very few people want to do every possible sex act with every possible person so it logically follows that a submissive wouldn't want to be dominated in every way by every person.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its a topic that, I suppose, can't help but be politicized. Amusingly, the best critique of it came from a DC comic book, where the character Starfire was flying around naked and a local boy saw her. She mused about how Americans were so obsessed with sex but at the same time so afraid of sexuality. I don't know, I know its not a new argument, but I found the scene to be poignant. Lol, I'll stop before I rant totally off the subject of your post.

I've never really gotten the point of that. Similarly Americans beat their spouses but also prosecute people who do so, Americans are black but they're white, Americans are alive but they are dead.

Unless you can show me that the people who actively fear sexuality are the same ones that flaunt it I don't really see the significance.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't really surprise me. Sex is highly emotional which would seem to disconnect it from the outside world. There's also the issue of comparability: very few people want to do every possible sex act with every possible person so it logically follows that a submissive wouldn't want to be dominated in every way by every person.

I didn't find it surprising either. The text of the peer reviewed articles I was reading said that the findings went against the dominant theories and were thus surprising.

Context is everything.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've never really gotten the point of that. Similarly Americans beat their spouses but also prosecute people who do so, Americans are black but they're white, Americans are alive but they are dead.

Unless you can show me that the people who actively fear sexuality are the same ones that flaunt it I don't really see the significance.

rap videos sort of exemplify it. They are both exceptionally sexual, yet necessarily tame. So, while it is inappropriate to show a naked pair of female breasts, it isn't inappropriate to have clothed (barely) females simulating sexual acts on each other while a rapper pours liquor on them.

I'm not saying it is an individual thing, its a weird trend that appears when you look at the culture. They use sex to sell milk, but at the same time, Janet Jackson almost reveals a nipple and the country goes into panic. Are they the same people demanding explicit sex everywhere as are complaining about explicit sex everywhere, probably not in most cases. However, the compromises that are made, re: girls making out with a man pouring stuff on them, are really just a biproduct, imho, of less explicit things being taboo. Its like, somewhere there is a concerned parents group going, "man, at least we are keeping breasts off of TV", when they would reduce the sexual content of media by actually allowing them.

I see your point, and it is true for individuals, but not for the "American" culture as a whole.

To clarify BDSM & its variants is weird from a subjective viewpoint.

From an objective p.o.v. it is Strange.

strange, because our species has a natural instinct to self preservation and actualisation.

employing a 'dom' to injure you is a form of self harm. where the 'dom' is used as a tool.

Enthusiasts of the ways of The Marquis in the 21st Century will suggest euphoria experienced at the conclusion of a self-harm session is True Awakening of Self.

From an objective & subjective view self harm is beneficial when it supports life.

Example: A Soldier exposing a flesh wound to extreme heat to cauterize it and prevent an early death through infection.