Back to the Future  

knight2queen4 53M
8 posts
10/16/2005 7:57 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

Back to the Future

I had a close buddy once tell me that the hardest thing about dating is doing it while you’re married. His waywardness and defiance of social norms was humorous, and I laughed along with him, as his debauchery seemed funny at the time.

I didn’t really understand what he was trying to tell me exactly until after I was married… for a few years. Who we fall in love with and marry may not keep us enchanted and focused on them forever. In fact, if you believe all of the research that is out there surrounding us, men do have a very hard time remaining “true and devoted” to only one woman. Like having prime grade filet mignon every evening of your life, even the sexiest of women can eventually seem blasé to any person who needs variety in his life. Moreover, not just men feel this way. I should know… as I am married and dating other married women who are tired of something that is missing at home with their husbands.

When I considered my own situation, as well as those of other married people I know, both men and women, it brought to mind a lecture series from a college history course back a few years. I conducted some research based on what I had recalled and found this as interesting the second time around as the first time I had heard it.

In ancient, classical cultures… Grecian, Roman, Babylonian, Egyptian, and early Jewish, it was most common for a man to marry the woman he wanted as the mother of his children, to care for his home, to stand at his side in social, religious and political settings, to share quality time and live by his side into old age. However, it was publicly acceptable that men in these same cultures took mistresses, even pursued other men’s unsatisfied wives, to keep themselves and their partners passionately and sensually stimulated. It was only with the rise of modern religions and “puritan” thought that the very idea of having more than one’s share of companionship was unusual, if not greedy.

The idea is even etched in stone: “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” Why? Just because you can’t keep her happy at home, or because you’re a limp dick, or tiny penis syndrome, or you don’t like the idea that some of us can make two, three or more women happy when you can’t keep even one pleased? Polygamy was not outlawed by young, virile and strong men of prowess; those laws were enacted by insecure, vulnerable, dissatisfied men, who were also often too old or repressed to enjoy sex any longer,

I believe, even in the light of current laws and religious dogma we live with today that the ancient customs should return as open and acceptable practices today. There is no reason we should be restrained by false, self-imposed boundaries. We are supposed to be living in a time of freedom of thought and enlightenment… and yet we are in the dark ages of social tenets.

As for me, I would have to say that the hardest thing about dating today is doing it while you’re married….


leyndokona2 49F

10/17/2005 2:26 am

Would be nice to have a glimpse into the future and see if things will still be the same a few decades from now...


rm_GypsieSon 35M
2 posts
11/14/2005 11:59 am

It's nice to know someone else pays attention to the past, oh boy did that come out trite sorry. My point was that I appreciate the time and research you've done and that you've kept it so true to form, having done some inquests into this same field of my own I rearly have the pleasure of a fellow researcher. I would if I may like to add that these cultures often believed (and my own personal experience bears this out) that having someone additional outside the marriage (who's not trying to break it up) is one of the better things that can happen to most marriages. In point of fact on average marriages where one pattern has "something on the side" (don't really care for the phrase but I'm lacking a better one at the moment) last longer than the more Puritan model of absolute monogamy. And that the average time a marriage lasts that both parties are externally involved is even slightly longer than those with only one eternally involved spouse. Being loving and communicative is of course even more important to the lasting maintenance of a relationship which is why I wholly support your desire for a return to more enlightened precepts about the situation. Because wouldn't it be nice if our marriages could benefit from the positives of both having the enrichment of someone external and the full measure of open communication and loving acceptance?


Become a member to create a blog