help that God may only be able to give, but i'll seek it here anyways...

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:30 pm

I mean fundamentalist religous groups, thats why I said so. Religous groups that oppose premartial sex can be found outside southern USA, and even outside christianity, Some of these religous groups are not usally referred to as conservative. Since they almost always present quite extreme moralistic views based on what they belive thier founding principles were I think it is correct to call them fundamentalist.

However I didnt meant to cause a debate about this, and if you would find one interesting I suggest we move to another thread. I merely tried to answer dark_raven's question.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:42 pm

asurademon wrote:Quoting C Elegans
"The only solution I see if you love both and want to have a romatic and sexual relationship to both, is that you asked them what they would think about having a polygamic relationship. Of course you must grant them access to other partners as well, then."

Not necessarily true, if someone really wanted to have a polygamous relationship where their partners are monogamous with them, but they aren't monogamous with their partners, all they'd have to do is find some people that like that idea, and could agree to having that sort of relationship. It may not be easy to find people that want that sort of relationship, but it's not entirely impossible.

I certainly think it is true that he must grant them access to other partners if they want to. Maybe they do not want or need that and one-sided polygamy is accepted, but I think that any person asking for an open relationship must be prepared to give their partners the same. Even if you can find people willing to have a monogamous relationship while you are polygamous, I certainly think polygamy should be offered to your partner if you want it yourself.

Brynn] As I see many people find it hard to establish and maintain a wrote:
I am not sure how you define a "normal" relationship, but I would say that a healthy relationship involves mutual love, honesty, committment and respect, and none of those things are related to "normality"=according to social norms. The agreements for a multiple-parter relationship should not differ from one-partner relationship.

You can get anybody and anything you want. If you want two girls at the same time, why not? Just do what you want, it's a free world!
You focus too much on form and too little on content. Why can't people just take anything they want? Because other people must agree. Having more than one partner does not imply that you can just "take them" as if they are your property, no more so than you can do with one partner.

And I also added that I can speak only for myself, so if other people choose to live a different life with different kind of relationships, I'm not here to judge them (I have no intention, nor he right to do so). I'm just saying that I don't approve of this, and I wouldn't advise anybody (especially teenagers) to accept open relationships. That's all.

How we want our close relationships with other people is a private and individual matter, and as long as everybody involved want to have it in a certain way and are happy and develop as persons, I think the form matters little. If you prefer life-long monogamy, serial monogamy, different variants of polygamy...the choice only concerns the involved persons. Then, we may have opinions on what we think is best for humanity. These opinions may be based on what we know about human nature, how we want a society structured, what we interpret as religious rules, or other factors.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:17 pm

I really did not get the impression that DR was passing judgment on how people conduct their relationships; indeed, he has been exceedingly respectful. Nor did I get the impression that he was looking to attack anybody for their views, or be attacked himself.

Equally, Brynn was simply expressing her opinion, she is not attacking anyone or showing disrespect for differing viewpoints.

One's personal life is precisely that, personal. And the choices one makes therein are not unlike diet, or religious beliefs, which is to say, an individual decision. Unless somebody is being hurt, it is nobody's damned business!

Dark Raven asked for help with a particular matter, and when he politely stated that he was not inclined towards open relationships he was blithely ignored. Honestly..... Why not try to show him, and those who have supported his POV, the respect they have shown to everyone else!

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:19 pm

[QUOTE=fable]the Mormons (who are among the most conservative people on just about every issue you'd care to find, if you'd care to look for that) still permit polygamy, and it exists alongside monogamy without any problem under both Utah law and social custom.[/QUOTE]

Actually fable, the official stance of the Mormon church (ie: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) states that one must follow the laws of the land, and given that polygamy is against the law in the US, it is not recognized as acceptable by the Church...Utah State law does not officially recognize polygamy, however, cultural cohabitation with multiple partners is widely overlooked and accepted as a variation of 'normal' family structure and many splinter factions which have broken off from the main church do actively recognize and practice polygamy.

@ DR....It's great to be loved..being loved by both ladies you hold so dear, even if one is only as a friend now..is a blessing indeed

@ Brynn...While I might not agree with you, I do understand what you were saying, I also understand that you were not trying to attack anyone...it is often difficult to communicate through the landmines

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:29 pm

[QUOTE=Dottie]There was no disrespect meant, but the idea that premarital sex is wrong is rarely found outside fundamentalist religous groups. That made me suggest this was a reason people assumed sex with someone you love and have a relationship with is something desirable.[/QUOTE]

And here all along I thought you had such broad horizons...

I dated a guy when I was 19 for three months who wanted to 'wait until we married'...he was an atheist...but believed that sexual relationships were something very special and wanted to remain a virgin until he was married. While I initially got engaged to him, I realized that I was just wanting to get on with it...I broke up with him out of both fairness to his convictions, and a bad case of hot pants...Damn he was nice looking though

dark_raven · Post by **dark_raven** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:09 pm

[QUOTE=dragon wench]I really did not get the impression that DR was passing judgment on how people conduct their relationships[/QUOTE]
dw, your right... i wasn't judging (or at least i wasn't trying to judge) people on how they conduct there own relationships. and if there is anyone that thought otherwise, i'm sorry if it sounded that way to you.
[QUOTE=Scayde]@ DR....It's great to be loved..being loved by both ladies you hold so dear, even if one is only as a friend now..is a blessing indeed

[/QUOTE]
i have to agree with you on that

[QUOTE=Brynn]
DR: do you consider your problem solved now? Are you OK with this situation?[/QUOTE]
well, i consider the problem only tempararally solved and even if i wasn't OK with the sulution that presented it self, i'm not going to reject it because that would make ME have to do the choosing between the 2 girls and i hate that type of choise

[QUOTE=Dottie]I think people did mention sexual relationships because they didnt see any reason to assume a religous fundamentalist viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
who said i was looking at the issue as a religous fundamentalist!?! it's my own d*** choise to when i have sex, not God's! if i really wanted pre-marital sex, there is NOTHING that God would do to stop me! it is my own choise! (well, and my girlfriend's

) sorry if i sound rude... and it isn't just me that wants to wait, my girlfriend also wants to wait (which is good). thoe, my ex could care less

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:24 pm

[QUOTE=dark_raven]who said i was looking at the issue as a religous fundamentalist!?![/quote]

Certainly not Dottie. He simply wrote: "There was no disrespect meant, but the idea that premarital sex is wrong is rarely found outside fundamentalist religous groups." If anything, he seems to be saying that he thought you were at first, got it wrong, and meant nothing by it.

it's my own d*** choise to when i have sex, not God's! if i really wanted pre-marital sex, there is NOTHING that God would do to stop me! it is my own choise! (well, and my girlfriend's ) sorry if i sound rude...

Calm down.

I note you mentioned "the downside of premarital sex" without specifying what you see that to be. Without meaning to be too intrusive, could you elaborate a bit?

[QUOTE=Scayde]Actually fable, the official stance of the Mormon church (ie: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) states that one must follow the laws of the land, and given that polygamy is against the law in the US, it is not recognized as acceptable by the Church...[/quote]

Yes, the official stance, and officially, the last Mormon polygamist died in the 1970s. And I expect we both fervently accept that, as well the fact that Roman Catholic priests never feel any interest in sex, and Protestants only use the missionary position.

I should have been clearer I was discussing facts on the ground, not in the dogma.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:38 pm

dragon wench wrote:I really did not get the impression that DR was passing judgment on how people conduct their relationships; indeed, he has been exceedingly respectful. Nor did I get the impression that he was looking to attack anybody for their views, or be attacked himself.

Equally, Brynn was simply expressing her opinion, she is not attacking anyone or showing disrespect for differing viewpoints.

Neither did I, my impression was that a discussion between people with different views is going on. Is anyone attacking somebody?

Is anyone feeling attacked by somebody else?

Dark Raven asked for help with a particular matter, and when he politely stated that he was not inclined towards open relationships he was blithely ignored. Honestly..... Why not try to show him, and those who have supported his POV, the respect they have shown to everyone else!

I really hope that Dark Raven do not feel ignored, as you suggest he was. We must be reading totally different thing into people's posts in this thread. When I read the thread I see that first, he posed a question and people posted some suggestions. Then he posted the solution, that his ex had decided to engage in another relationship, and then people continued to discuss different relationship forms as a general topic.

Dark Raven, if you feel attacked or ignored or percieve that anyone thought you were attacking them please say so, but personally I believe there is a risk to introduce misunderstandings that did not exist from the beginning, if we start pointing out how other people percieve each other.

I don't mean to attack you @DW

but when stating Brynn is not attacking anyone or showing disrespect, it can give the impression to Brynn that somebody thought she was attacking or showing disrespect, when in reality, we don't know if anyone felt attacked, I wouldn't think so since I see nobody in the thread reacting as if they were under attack.

Similarily, but stating that everybody in this thread should try to show DR respect, it may sound like somebody is disrespectful to DR, which I think nobody has been - unless you think it is disrespectful that people use his thread to discuss general matters after his initial problem was solved "by itself" so to speak.

What I am trying to say here is that I think one should be careful in attributing emotions and intentions to other posters, since it may misunderstandings that create tensions that were not initially there.

Sorry for the off-topic DR! As I said previously somewhere in this thread, you and your ex must now focus on your new relationships and work to transform your love into friendship.

dark_raven · Post by **dark_raven** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:38 pm

sorry about that, fable your right... dottie didn't say that and i shouldn't over react like that. it's just been a long long day... i should and do apologise to dottie for my over-reaction.

the downsides to pre-marital sex that i see are:
>you don't know if you/they have stds (unless you & your partner got checked)
>as a 17 year old, i'm not old enough to worry about my girl getting pregnent.
-----<now, you might say to just use a condom... but they aren't 100% safe and it is possible that she'd still get pregnent, not likely, but possable>
>looking for the right place to do it (neither my parents or my girlfriend's parents would Apove of it)
>how to get to the area (neither i or my girl drives yet

)

and thats just a few that i thought of off hand.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Dark Raven, if you feel attacked or ignored or percieve that anyone thought you were attacking them please say so,[/QUOTE]
@c elegans, truthfuly, if i did feel attacked or ignored, i would have said so

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Sorry for the off-topic DR! As I said previously somewhere in this thread, you and your ex must now focus on your new relationships and work to transform your love into friendship.[/QUOTE]
and, thats ok... i'm the type who won't say (when starting a thread) that spam is ok...

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:55 pm

[QUOTE=fable]
Yes, the official stance, and officially, the last Mormon polygamist died in the 1970s. And I expect we both fervently accept that, as well the fact that Roman Catholic priests never feel any interest in sex, and Protestants only use the missionary position.

I should have been clearer I was discussing facts on the ground, not in the dogma.[/QUOTE]

All sarcasm aside, I was heavily involved in the Mormon Church for years, even joined it at one point. I've served at the local stake level as a youth rep to Salt Lake City...My remarks were intended to help shed some light on an often misunderstood subject regarding the LDS Church. I have known hundreds of Mormons, many on a very personal level. While I did come across many apologists for the history of the church regarding polygamy, I never met a single person who actually practiced it. I met many life long monogamous couples who believe with all of their hearts that their marriages will continue not only until death do us part, but in the next life as well. They take marriage very seriously, as a covenant between each other and God. The timeline looks like this...

1862 The Morill Act prohibiting polygamy is passed by U.S. Congress.

1876 D&C 132, which allows polygamy, is first printed in a volume of Mormon scripture.

1880 In October, D&C 132 on polygamy is first voted on by the Mormon membership.

1882 Congress passes the Edmunds Act providing heavy penalties for practicing polygamy. The practice continues by many in hiding.

1887-90 The Edmunds-Tucker Act dissolves the Mormon Church corporation and seizes its property. A short time later the Supreme Court finds it constitutional. Legislation is drafted to disenfranchise all Mormons.

1890 September 25th, Mormon Church President Wilford Woodruff issues his Manifesto asking Mormons to stop the practice of polygamy. At a Mormon Church general conference on October 6th this Manifesto, now called Official Declaration - 1, is accepted by the general membership as "authoritative and binding". This does not reject the revelation allowing polygamy, D&C 132; it just puts the practice aside.

.......

Since a tenet of the Mormon faith is to follow the proclamations of the "Prophet"....it is considered a moral obligation to follow the ruling of President Woodruff of 1890. This act caused great division in the Mormon Church and the supporters of polygamy splintered off into many side factions. They model themselves after the LDS church in many ways, but they are not recognized members of the LDS church. The LDS members go to great lengths to educate people in regards to this. I do not know of a single member that I came in contact with that would undermine what they have tried to accomplish in this area by practicing polygamy. I think it does them a disservice when in the face of the struggles they have faced in this issue, and the tremendous amount of work they have put into educating the public and their members in this regard, that their legitimate efforts are ignored and they are accused of doing exactly what they have excommunicated thousands for practicing.

Aside from this, let me say that I am no longer associated with the Mormon Church, or any other church for that matter. My spiritual beliefs are self directed and comprised of teaching of many religions. I do not have a problem with polygamy, or polyandry , so long as it is done in a manner where there is full disclosure and as CE said all partners are in agreement and share the same opportunities.. .

dark_raven · Post by **dark_raven** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:10 pm

@Scayde & fable, i am respectfully asking that if you want to talk about the mormon, that you start a new thread... thank you

i do remember that i said that spam was ok, but you 2 are are writing enough to start another thread

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:44 pm

[QUOTE=dark_raven]rereading many posts, i've noticed that people keep mentioning sexual relations with the 2 girls... i must ask this question... when did i say that i wanted to be sexually invalved with both of them? i'm 17... thats like, at least 4 years too young to even consider a sexual relation. and the first time i'm planing on having my relationship turn to a sexual one is after i've married one of them (which is going to be my current girlfriend). i do admit that i have thought of it befor, but every time i do, i find myself thinking of the downside of premarital sex more then the up side of it.[/QUOTE]
In your first message, you referred to "cheating". That has sexual connotations, so that might have given some people the idea that you were talking about sexual relationships. But I agree that you can have a serious, committed monogamous relationship without sex.

I know you're looking for sympathy as well as advice, so let me assure you that you have my sympathy. But let me challenge you to think about some important issues, okay? I think you're dealing with some serious issues, so they deserve some serious thought.

[QUOTE=dark_raven]the downsides to pre-marital sex that i see are:
>you don't know if you/they have stds (unless you & your partner got checked)
>as a 17 year old, i'm not old enough to worry about my girl getting pregnent.
-----<now, you might say to just use a condom... but they aren't 100% safe and it is possible that she'd still get pregnent, not likely, but possable>
>looking for the right place to do it (neither my parents or my girlfriend's parents would Apove of it)
>how to get to the area (neither i or my girl drives yet

)

and thats just a few that i thought of off hand.[/QUOTE]
When you said that it would be at least four years before you were ready to have sex, I thought you were referring to personal, spiritual, or emotional reasons rather than simple practical reasons. But all of the reasons you listed are merely simple, practical reasons why premarital sex is problematic for young people. In my opinion, only the second one on your list (the risk of pregnancy) has any moral relevance. In other words, if you and your partner were both disease-free and you had the opportunity to have sex discreetly and comfortably, the risk of pregnancy is the only thing I can see stopping you from having sex, given what you have told us. I tend to think there's more to it than that. Why do you believe in monogamy? Why do you believe in waiting until you're married before you have sex? (You don't have to answer those rhetorical questions.) I think those are important issues, and you ought to think about your beliefs.

In a very loose sense of the word, every romantic relationship is a "sexual" relationship when you think about it, because sexual attraction lies at the heart of what we call romantic love. When you want to fall in love, you want to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, right? Your difference in gender makes sex an issue in your relationship, whether or not you're having sex. And when you get involved in a serious amorous relationship that goes beyond friendship, you're dealing with some powerful emotions. So when you said that it would be several years before you were ready to have sex, it made me wonder if you're ready for deep romantic love. Since you love two young women, you felt pressured from the inside to do something about it, since love creates a feeling of urgency; but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're ready to handle feelings like that. I mean, people can't go saying, "I'm in love, so I must be ready for it." I've seen too many people fall flat on their face when they had insisted that everything was "perfect".

I'm a little concerned about the fact that your last relationship ended in suicide. I think you do need God's help to deal with something like that. I don't know you, so I'm not saying that you have any particular problems, but if you do have self-esteem issues or other issues to deal with, I think you need to care of those before you get married. You don't want you or you partner to do crazy things.

Maybe Gwalchmai is right: there are a lot of other things you could be doing at your age besides worrying about romantic relationships. But if you "have" to make permanent decisions that will affect the rest of your life right now just because you're in love and you feel like you "have" to do something about it right now because that's how you feel and it's so important because, hey, that's how you feel, then by all means, make your decision and be happy.

Just be careful, okay?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:49 pm

[QUOTE=Scayde]Since a tenet of the Mormon faith is to follow the proclamations of the "Prophet"....it is considered a moral obligation to follow the ruling of President Woodruff of 1890. This act caused great division in the Mormon Church and the supporters of polygamy splintered off into many side factions. They model themselves after the LDS church in many ways, but they are not recognized members of the LDS church. The LDS members go to great lengths to educate people in regards to this. I do not know of a single member that I came in contact with that would undermine what they have tried to accomplish in this area by practicing polygamy.[/QUOTE]

Scayde, I've interviewed a few Mormons in the 1980s who claimed there were practicing polygamists in the LDS, and who had been subsequently excommunicated. Others said they hadn't left to form splinter groups, but been forced out--essentially for presenting their version of Mormon history, which is as confusing and inclusive of unique revelations as the LDS. I've also encountered books from these people claiming as much. They claim they (mainly United Apostalic Brethren and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are the genuine Mormons, numbering somewhat less than 75,000 people, not the much larger LDS church that has abandoned polygamy. The LDS can say there aren't any Mormon polygamists if it's allowed to define itself as the only real communion of Mormons, but it would appear other Mormons disagree about this. Personally, I have no problem with all of them declaring they're Mormons or anything else.

EDIT: Er, sorry Dark Raven. Didn't see your comment about keeping the subsequent Mormon remarks out of your thread. If Scayde wants to continue this elsewhere, I'm game, and we'll just start a new thread for it. If not, well, we'll drop it, and forget the whole matter.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:53 am

[QUOTE=Scayde]And here all along I thought you had such broad horizons...

I dated a guy when I was 19 for three months who wanted to 'wait until we married'...he was an atheist...but believed that sexual relationships were something very special and wanted to remain a virgin until he was married. While I initially got engaged to him, I realized that I was just wanting to get on with it...I broke up with him out of both fairness to his convictions, and a bad case of hot pants...Damn he was nice looking though

[/QUOTE]

Hehe, well, I did wrote rarely. Im sure there are other exceptions as well, but if you were to check the premarital sex attitudes between the two groups Religous fundamentalists and not religous fundamentalists Im sure there would be some kind of difference.

You cant imagine how happy I am to finally be told there is at least one crack in your religous wall though.

j/k Good choice btw.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:19 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]How we want our close relationships with other people is a private and individual matter, and as long as everybody involved want to have it in a certain way and are happy and develop as persons, I think the form matters little.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that. I only question that they can really accept it. I mean come on, who wants to be a second woman to a man she loves so much? People get into these kind of things b/c they can't get what they are looking for in a normal way, imho. But then again, I can be wrong, and others may see it differently.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Neither did I, my impression was that a discussion between people with different views is going on. Is anyone attacking somebody? Is anyone feeling attacked by somebody else? [/QUOTE]
I don't think so. I definitely don't feel offended or anything, nor did I mean to attack anybody. Clearly, we have totally different opinions, but for me it's interesting to hear what "the other side" has to support the opposite idea. Hope DR benefits sg from this, too

dark_raven · Post by **dark_raven** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:07 pm

[QUOTE=VonDondu]In your first message, you referred to "cheating". That has sexual connotations, so that might have given some people the idea that you were talking about sexual relationships.[/QUOTE]
your right, i did say that... i suppose that that could mean a sexual relationship, or it could mean just dating one behind the other's back (which is what i was talking about. but i suppose that i never spesified on that)
[QUOTE=fable]Er, sorry Dark Raven. Didn't see your comment about keeping the subsequent Mormon remarks out of your thread. If Scayde wants to continue this elsewhere, I'm game, and we'll just start a new thread for it. If not, well, we'll drop it, and forget the whole matter.

[/QUOTE]
thankyou

[QUOTE=VonDondu]Why do you believe in monogamy? Why do you believe in waiting until you're married before you have sex? (You don't have to answer those rhetorical questions.)[/QUOTE]
i'll answer them anyways

. i believe in monogamy because of my speritual beliefs. and my belief in waiting till marrage for sex is because sex is somthing that should be in the confines of marrage (just like a fire in a fireplace). sex outside of marrage can be very emotionally destructive to both people invalved.[QUOTE=VonDondu]When you said that it would be at least four years before you were ready to have sex, I thought you were referring to personal, spiritual, or emotional reasons rather than simple practical reasons. [/QUOTE]yes, the reasons i listed are practical, but like i said before[QUOTE=dark_raven]
thats just a few that i thought of off hand.[/QUOTE]the practical reasons are always the easyest to think of and thats why they are the first i thought of...

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:45 am

[QUOTE=dark_raven]and my belief in waiting till marrage for sex is because sex is somthing that should be in the confines of marrage (just like a fire in a fireplace). sex outside of marrage can be very emotionally destructive to both people invalved.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think it's emotionally destructive?

And another question about that: what if someone gets married at the age of 30? Do you think he/she should wait with sex until then?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:07 am

Brynn, I don't get the impression he's saying premarital sex is automatically destructive, only that it could be.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:49 am

Ok, I put it this way, then: how do you think it could be destructive?

Just asking.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Ok, not presuming to answer for anyone here, but here's a hypothetical situation where pre-marital sex might be considered "distructive" (ok, sorry, I'm trying not to step on anyone's toes here). What if you have a highly religously oriented couple whose religion instructs them to abstain until marriage, and they don't. Then, they both end up feeling guilty, some friends find out, they become socially ostracized, realize they weren't ready for a commitment of that magnitude, etc., and end up being torn apart by guilt and misplaced anger, bla bla bla.

I'm not saying I personally think that, but it's a hypothetical.