Non-monogamy in marriage

I thought it was interesting how shocked everyone pretended to be that Jada Pinkett-Smith said she trusted her husband and it wasn't her job to look after him.
As long as he was coming home to her, that was all that mattered.
I think her words were, "He's a grown ass man and as long he can look at himself in the mirror, I'm fine with his decisions."
When they asked if it worked both ways, obviously thinking they were going to get some kind of story out of that.
"And how could it be any other way?" was her response.

Now I don't them personally so I don't know how true what she is saying really is but if that's how she really look at it (and he does as well), I have to say I'm impressed.
In the crazy ass world of celebratory marriages, that's pretty mature.

 

Not the same as pilagshut at all. The husband is not "compelled by force of capital law" to be remain monogamous. If he decides this arrangement is not for him, he could demand changes or leave. Why would he be ethically compelled to match his wife's sleeping around?

Admittedly, if he WAS obliged, this could lead to some interesting pick-up lines...

 

No, obviously I am not suggesting it is literally the same thing. And if this husband is simply refraining because he prefers not to sleep around himself but does wish his wife to sleep around, then yes, there is a significant difference, it is not at all the same. But if he is refraining because he feels bound to be monogamous, yet his wife is sleeping around, then I think there is an element of comparability, though clearly it is not at all the same phenomenon.

What I'm saying is that monogamy or non-monogamy must be equal opportunity in order to be remotely ethical.

(It would be a great pickup line, though: "Please, you have to help me out. My religion requires it! I could die if you don't fuck me!")

 

Yes, that's the ticket!

 

Be careful what you ask for .

 

Would a moderator please add NSFW to my post, #25?

No, this isn't a joke request based on another thread.

 

Are the gays ruining marriage? I don't think so. I like to joke that if the gays can marry that, the necrophiliacs and bestiality people will be the next ones screaming for equal rights, but I don't think gays are the problem. The success or failure of marriage wholly depends on the quality of the commitment level of those involved, combined with a few extras such as are you really in love with the person, are you able to live up to your vows, and do you get bored easily? It really comes down to the unique people involved rather than if they are homo or heterosexual or any combination of the two.

My "wife" and I have been together for over 15 years and get along great, even though we have no official marriage license. We committed to each other, which is all you really need in a marriage. (Fuck the paper.) We really care about each other, are committed to the relationship, appreciate each other, and are committed to working out potential problems before they become real problems. Any combination of human groupings can make it work employing this formula.

I don't find the online hate surprising at all. On line chat boards and comments forums are full of internet cowards who vent their anger and hostility that they usually would never show in person. If it isn't the gays, or the non-monogamous married groupings, then it is the sports stars. I can't tell you how many people live to slam Tim Tebow, Kobe Bryant, Pete Rose and A-Rod. Hell, Tim Tebow is one of the nicest people you'd ever hope to meet, yet these morons hate him because he's comfortable talking about his religious beliefs. When these people sit in front of a keyboard, it is as if Satan whispers in their ear to rip the subject of the article a new orifice or something.

So, I don't think that this online hate is as much about the group marriages, as much as it is about the opportunity to randomly and anonymously spew hatred and vile for who ever the subject matter is. Once ESPN.com went to using Facebook as their logins, their comments immediately became civilized. It forced people to put their name on their comments and own them.

 

Since when did corpses and animals gain the ability to consent to sex? Until we have zombies and talking animals, I don't think there will be any issues here.

 

Put on your reading glasses, Charlatan. You missed the word JOKE, which sets the entire context for that sentence.

One thing I've learned is to never underestimate the power of whiners in this politically correct society we live in. Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

I think the legalization applies directly to your circumstances. What if you were to become unable to make decisions for yourself? Without the paper, your wife has no standing. Which means either your nearest blood relative gets tapped (depending on laws in your state), or a you're appointed a ward of the state and a court appointed representative makes those decisions for you.

It's not just health decisions either; there's inheritance, shared assets, the whole 9 yards. Do you own a home? Is it in your name; hers, or both? If only titled to one of you the other has no standing if an argument happens. You could legally be kicked out of a home you have put money into because your community isn't recognized. Is one of you dependent on the other's income? The court's action makes state recognized marital communities available to gays (I would argue other community types as well) so that all of these protections are available.

So before you say "fuck the paper" please realize that there may be consequences you hadn't thought of.

 

And I've learned to never underestimate the ability for bigots to disguise their contempt in "jokes".

I don't know you, so maybe I'm wrong. The tone in your posts leads me to believe otherwise.

 

They should have a right to privacy.

Before I elaborate, I will say that I'm not a member of Ashley Madison. With that out of the way, all I ask is that everyone treat this with understanding, that it's easy to paint every person who uses AM as some old rich white celebrity or businessman who's cheating on his faithful wife of 40+ years.

But, many of them are likely just people who are trapped in a sexless marriage and long for the touch of another human being. That doesn't make them evil. Not in my book.

/been there

 

There are big problems with marriage today, this doesn't help things. Especially when one partner is doing this covertly behind the other's back.

I don't feel sorry for those who will be exposed. I just wish divorce attorneys weren't going to be the winners in this.

 

Ditto.

Agreed. And not every AM user is a cheating spouse. There are single people, and people in open relationships.

I know a couple who got together through the site, and are still together. Their situations were different, but neither of them were violating any partner's expectations.

The company behind Ashley Madison is scum, no doubt about that. But their users should have privacy.

Damn straight!

 

Ultimately, privacy is more important than schadenfreude.

That said, we all love to throw judgement around. It's one of the main staples of Internet interlocution.

 

I've found that people who complain about political correctness are often unaware that cultures change.
What is considered polite and acceptable changes, words that were acceptable change.
Being aware of that and not being a dick really isn't that hard.