Preety_India

Is not cheating an unrealistic goal?

38 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you have cheating, that means you have lying. And if your relationship isn't based on truth and trust, it's already dead.

And what if I'm aware of the cheating? 

Does the relationship depend on how I treat the cheating or is it already dead no matter what I think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

And what if I'm aware of the cheating? 

Does the relationship depend on how I treat the cheating or is it already dead no matter what I think? 

If he's cheating he's also lying, so there's no truth or trust there, and yeah, the relationship is basically dead at that point.

Once the truth/trust is shattered then the correct way to treat it is to leave.

In intimate relationships there are certain red lines that, once crossed, can never be uncrossed and destroy the relationship forever. Cheating is one of those lines. But it's only cheating if you guys agreed to go exclusive.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leo Gura said:

If he's cheating he's also lying, so there's no truth or trust there, and yeah, the relationship is basically dead at that point.

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I like the idea of monogamy. You form a deep and strong connection with one person and then pursue whatever you want in life. But it's possible once I experience this kind of relationship I may outgrow it, but we will see.

Polyamory doesn't make sense to me in the context of relationships. If you are willing to fuck everyone, then why have a relationship at all. Just remain single, and be with whoever you want at the time you want companionship. 

But I think it's possible to love everyone, without needing to fuck everyone. So you can have an intimate sexual relationship with 1 person, and still love other people like family and friends. 

I have a sense that part of what motivates polyamory is weak men. I wonder how many polyamorous relationships exist because either the girl is using one man as a financial/security provider but also wants to have sex with men who satisfy other needs, or you have men who want sexual novelty and so feel the need to multiple partners to satisfy that itch.

I would love to see a world where everyone had strong monogamous relationships where both partners love and are devoted to each other, but also love other people, but just don't feel the need to fuck everyone they meet.

polyamory gives structure support stability so you can be your fullest self, it is more driven by women than men, men are more pro casual sex and swinging ... check the reddit sub and you'll see it's 90% women who post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@gettoefl Yeah i've been checking out the polyamory thread. We will see.

This is all intellectual for me so who knows what kind of relationship I'll end up in.

I wouldn't mind me and a few woman haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polyamory is not cheating.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I wouldn't mind me and a few woman haha

That's not how polyamory works.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

If you want to have specific relationships then monogamy is wiser. If you just want to be in relationship with the universe then we are talking about a different paradigm. 

I'm talking about sexual and deeply intimate relationships as well, I am not saying you shouldn't love your friends and family. 

Also, I want a family. So if I were poly how would that impact my children? If you are in a multi person poly relationship how do you decide who impregnates who?

I would agree that saying you want no relationships and just want to be in love with everyone and everything is probably wiser in an absolute sense, but I am speaking from a human pov as someone who wants to live a good life as a human being. 

If someone said they lived a complete life and then felt they out grew monogamy that is also a different thing too. But you may be a person who THINKS they out grew it, but are still just confused.

You literally have not explained how monogamy is wiser. You just said if you want to be in a specific relationship it is wiser. I said explain, not state your belief. Notice, you cannot explain to me why it is wiser. That means it is not your belief but something you took on. A belief is only yours when you can explain why you believe in it.

I already stated that entire cultures functioned and they even prospered on polyamory. The only reason monogamy is more common now is because many European cultures have conquered the World and forced their values on to the world.

I can make many arguments as to why polyamory is actually a more inclusive form of love and thus more representative of unconditional love than monogamy even though I too have a preference for monogamy. When you only hold views that fit your preferences and are unable to see the value another perspective has then you will be limited and live a limited experience. 

I see many people come on here and try to talk Spirituality and then literally speak the same things they are told. You have claimed in the past that I parrot (which many on this forum no I don't do). A parrot cannot put things in their own words, a parrot cannot explain their position.

So again I ask....why is monogamy better than polyamory. By the way...all hierarchy is delusion but go ahead and explain why it is better and watch me show how none of those points are true.

Edited by Razard86

The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Some of this is true but it is important to distinguish between primitivism and pre-history. Many ancient and non-Western cultures also practised monogamy: Hindu India, Traditional China and even ancient Egypt largely practised monogamy (of course the realities of sexuality are always more complex and some people within these groups practiced polygamy).

Some might find it offensive but polygamy generally goes along with a primitive mentality: worship of the totem, pantheistic naturalism, a cult of the body and of matter, paths towards transcendence which are hysterical and Dionysian - often involving the rhythmic convulsions of dance, sex or ritualistic drug use - a feminine spirituality emphasising the Earth and the Mother, and so on. Polygamous promiscuity can be witnessed even in the West, particularly today given the neo-primitivism of modern Western man.

Forgive me for pointing out that your argument here is very narrowly Stage Green, appealing to the wisdom of the primitives as opposed to the domination and oppression of the modern West. This too is a bias. Also, Stage Green should remember that polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) was much, much rarer than polygyny (a man having multiple wives). Of course, though, you might be right that the traditional monogamous family has exhausted it’s utility.

You said: Some of this is true but it is important to distinguish between primitivism and pre-history. Many ancient and non-Western cultures also practised monogamy: Hindu India, Traditional China and even ancient Egypt largely practised monogamy (of course the realities of sexuality are always more complex and some people within these groups practiced polygamy).

Be careful with the words you use, you said some of this was true....which parts are the sum. Humanity started as hunter-gatherers. Tribes were formed through marriage. As a result if an individual obtained a lot of money, then they would get many wives. But what many feminist teachers won't tell you, is that there were two Matriarchal Tribes in Africa where the women were in power and had many husbands and right now in the present day Africa there currently exists a Matriarchal Tribe. I believe they still practice polyamory as well.

Now you are using judgmental words calling something primitive. What makes something primitive? I could call bread primitive, prayer primitive, meditation primitive. So explain what makes something primitive? If you say age, then you are not realizing that the foundation of all that we have is built on the old. Notice how as history moves....the new eventually seeks out the old. If that were not true, then why are so many rich celebrities seeking out retreats to engage in ancient traditions. If you pay attention Modern Society is crying out for help and as a result they are going back and researching how ancient people lived because in their eyes 'This ain't it." The people doing this are rich, wealthy, and famous. They have reached the highest heights of the Materialistic, Capitalism's totem pole and are not satisfied. The new will seek the old, the old will seek the new. There is no separation and both are needed. Your logical mind creates this divide through your preferences and stops you from seeing the truth.

You said: Some might find it offensive but polygamy generally goes along with a primitive mentality: worship of the totem, pantheistic naturalism, a cult of the body and of matter, paths towards transcendence which are hysterical and Dionysian - often involving the rhythmic convulsions of dance, sex or ritualistic drug use - a feminine spirituality emphasizing the Earth and the Mother, and so on. Polygamous promiscuity can be witnessed even in the West, particularly today given the neo-primitivism of modern Western man.  

Polyamory isn't promiscuity. Promiscuity is irresponsible sexual behavior and usually under deceptive terms. Also Monogamy has not worked sufficiently if you study divorce rates, and the amount of cheating that has gone on. What you don't understand is it takes a greater form of love to build a polyamorous society. Monogamy is a more selfish form of love and it actually creates more conflict. It is harder to share something you love, it is also harder to trust what you love with others. If you were to enter into a polyamorous society that has figured out how to make it work, those people would be more giving than those in a monogamous society. In fact if you study history the most violent groups were those who practiced monogamy. So explain to me which is the primitive one if you want to use that word. The more loving and accepting society, or the more selfish and violent one? 

Forgive me for pointing out that your argument here is very narrowly Stage Green, appealing to the wisdom of the primitives as opposed to the domination and oppression of the modern West. This too is a bias. Also, Stage Green should remember that polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) was much, much rarer than polygyny (a man having multiple wives). Of course, though, you might be right that the traditional monogamous family has exhausted it’s utility.

You bring up Spiral Dynamics and you have no clue how it operates. You sitting here talking about Stage Green? Listen closely so I can help you understand....based on Spiral Dynamics....polyamory is going to return. You are talking about bias? I literally told you I have a preference for monogamy. So who is the biased one? The one who prefers monogamy but can see the value in polyamory? Or the one who demonizes it and likens it to what they call primitive culture? You are stuck deep in dogma that predates your birth and you don't even realize it. Again if you were paying attention to how human history works you would realize that polyamory is going to return because it takes a higher expression of love to both create a polyamory society and maintain it. You think it primitive because you are selfish and have fears. Monogamy is the desire to possess someone.

True love allows someone the freedom to come and go as they please. It allows them to act and accept them as they are. You don't even realize how silly it sounds to demonize polyamory. Couple of reasons. 

1. All distinctions of family, friends etc. is just delusion. You cannot claim to come from the same ONE source and claim only one is your family. ALL is your family. This is so obvious it make no sense to try to argue otherwise. That means all those distinctions are delusion!! Even if you don't believe in all that and believe in evolution. All life would STILL COME from the same source and thus....its connected. You cannot escape this connection.

2. So if everybody comes from the same source and is family, then why should you care if your lover sleeps with another lover. They are your family. Now if you both agreed NOT to do that, then it is different. But why would you want to limit your partner's desire to express their love? You want to limit it because you are selfish. This selfishness has been normalized so much that you defend it. But when you look at it from the Meta perspective...its laughable, its childish. 

3. A polyamorous group would be greater connected, because they have all bonded with each other at the highest level. A group like this can actually achieve collective telepathy. You see you don't even understand the true purpose of sex. Sex is the union of not just body, but your entire being. High Conscious people have the best sex. They LITERALLY BECOME ONE. So picture a group of highly spiritual people who have done this, they will have the highest union. 

This actually USE to be case for those "primitive" groups you refer to. They got conquered and killed off to small numbers by those oh so advanced selfish, killing, monogamists you refer to. Those same monogamists who lie, cheat, still, kill, suffer from mental illness, and then kill themselves. Issues that those primitive societies you refer to, barely had.

Edited by Razard86

The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re monogamy and polyamory

People need different things, especially on this topic, because it's very personal to each. I could list them all and I started to but we'd be here forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Preety_India after reading your posts for quite some time now, it seems like you just have a really bad lack when it comes to relationships.

Imo, not cheating is not an unrealistic goal. For me it's one of the most basic expectations and if your partner can't fulfill it, you shouldn't be with them.

I think it just depends on a type of person you are dating.

I can't speak for other people. But as far as I am concerned I am 100% sure that I am not going to cheat on anyone. Period.

It's not about wether my girlfriend is good or bad, wether she is hot or not, whether our relationship is awesome or it's lame af.

I am just not a cheater, it goes against my values therefore I am not going to cheat no matter what relationship I am in.

 

Edited by Something Funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Preety_India after reading your posts for quite some time now, it seems like you just have a really bad lack when it comes to relationships.

Imo, not cheating is not an unrealistic goal. For me it's one of the most basic expectations and if your partner can't fulfill it, you shouldn't be with them.

I think it just depends on a type of person you are dating.

I can't speak for other people. But as far as I am concerned I am 100% sure that I am not going to cheat on anyone. Period.

It's not about wether my girlfriend is good or bad, wether she is hot or not, whether our relationship is awesome or it's lame af.

I am just not a cheater, it goes against my values therefore I am not going to cheat no matter what relationship I am in.

 

don't have expectations and assumptions

when you date someone be explicit if you need exclusivity or flexibility

exclusivity means you see only each other and seeing another person terminates the relationship

flexibility will mean either i do my thing you do your thing otherwise known as don't ask don't tell DADT

or it can mean if one wants to see someone else its possibility is discussed and a joint decision is arrived at

 

doing all this in the beginning saves a lot of heartache later on, it might be the most important subject in any relationship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@gettoefl how is that related to what I wrote?

look where you wrote "most basic expectations"

that's what i addressed

you said you want all this stuff, i am saying this should be a first date conversation for compatibility

not some afterthought 5 years later

Edited by gettoefl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Razard86 I am not against primitivism or “demonising polyamory” as everything has its proper place. It’s just that Stage Green likes to exalt it and even fetishise it as some ultimate ideal, like the “Noble Savage” of that precociously Green Frenchman Rousseau. For example, “What really makes something primitive?” is a classic Stage Green response, and so is your romanticisation of the idyllic peaceful lifestyle of those peoples who were “conquered and killed off to small numbers by those oh so advanced selfish, killing, monogamists you refer to. Those same monogamists who lie, cheat, still, kill, suffer from mental illness, and then kill themselves. Issues that those primitive societies you refer to, barely had.“ I don’t agree with Spiral Dynamics but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. It is so basic anyway! A model fit for children…

The common definition of primitivism is misguided: the (mostly) Western historians and anthropologists who formulated the modern conception of history mistakenly assumed that everybody in the distant past was living how Australian aborigines and African tribes lived at the time of their theorising and writing, just because it was a superficially more rudimentary form of life which they had immediate access to. This is an arbitrary assumption, however: those African and Australian tribes could just as well be degenerated residues of ancient civilisations as so-called “primitives”, and why assume that pre-historic peoples lived in the same way as “primitive” people today?

I have already defined primitivism above. The examples you gave of polygamy fit exactly the description of primitivism that I described! You suggested that an African Matriarchy practise polyandry and I specified that the primitive societies which practise polygamy are characterised by “cults of the Earth and of the Mother”! African ritual is very much based on frenetic dance whose aim is ecstatic possession (the Yoruba gods who “ride” the intoxicated subject, for example) which is exactly what I when I mentioned “frantic and Dionysian rights involving dance, sex and a ritualistic use of drugs”! I even said that you would find it offensive! 

You make so many assumptions. I understand that sex is not a merely bodily phenomenon (though it can be and today generally is). After all, sex is a reflection of the fundamental polarity of manifest existence and sexual union is a reflection of the underlying Unity of these twin principles. Even Stage Blue tradition tells us this: Plato’s Myth of Er in which before a metaphysical Fall all humans were hermaphrodites; Genesis, in which it is written ‘In God’s image he made them, Man and Woman he made them’; Purusha/Prakriti in Hinduism, Binah/Chokmah unified as Kether in Kabbalah, the alchemical hieros gamos and so on indefinitely.


As under I stood and with always stands, even my palms are out of my hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Razard86 It is not that monogamy is better than polygamy. They simply serve a different function and reflect a different orientation towards life and transcendence.

Monogamy is fit for sattvic cultures whose orientation is towards transcendence of the earthly and animal condition. It is the least natural and so like you say it often goes along with increased violence and material instability; it’s real purpose, however, is not material but spiritual so all of this is a false refutation of the value of monogamy.

Polygamy in the form of polygyny is fit for rajassic cultures and civilisations whose orientation is primarily towards the active application of spiritual principles in the world. After all, God is Unity and the Goddess is Infinity; God is the One and the Goddess is the All; God is Truth and the Goddess is Love. It makes sense, then, that a society whose main intention is the active application of spiritual principles would allow men (as incarnations of the One and Unity) to take multiple wives (as incarnations of the All and Infinity), but not vice versa.

Polygamy in the form of polyandry (women taking multiple husbands) is fit for tamassic cultures whose orientation is towards the body, the Earth (as “Mother Nature”) and the tribal totem. It is the most natural but it lacks a transcendent dimension, except in dark expressions such as necromancy (black magic) and ritualistic forms of dark and chthonic ecstasy.

Each of these have their own place in the hierarchy of existence and can be beautiful or terrible in their own way.

Edited by Oeaohoo

As under I stood and with always stands, even my palms are out of my hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Razard86 Haha I got nothing to say. Go be polyamorous.

 

Edited by Raptorsin7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now