Libido

I am soooooooo very sorry. What was taken from my response was not what I meant at all. All I meant is that we should follow our hearts n always do what's best for our families n by The Lord. I am so very embarrassed n so very sorry my words came acrost as they did I must've used incorrect terminology bc I didn't mention anything about homosexuality. I was just agreeing with everyone else n am so very sorry I expressed my words so improperly. I will makes sure I use my wording correctly from now on. Again I NEVER mean to offend anyone here. Y'all are wonderful strong amazing women who have made an amazing difference in mine n the lives of many.

In response to chickaboom's question about how fatherhood is determined in polyandrous marriages, I saw a documentary about a polyandrous society, I can't remember where, I think somewhere bordering China. The woman interviewed had married four brothers and she said to maintain harmony she attributed each child in turn to one of the brothers. My impression was that she was the head of the household, she worked hard not to favour anyone and jealousies did flair sometimes but overall it worked. Also, none of the men interviewed talked as if they felt entitled to a certain amount of sex. It has been suggested that polyandry would be a good solution for those places where there are many more men than women due to strong preferences for boy children - huge swathes of India and China have such an imbalance, fuelling kidnapping and trafficing of women within India and from countries bordering China. However replacing the customs, traditions, prejudices etc that have led to this kind of imbalance with the opposite - polyandry - seems almost impossible. Although maybe if you asked the young men who see no hope of finding a wife, they might feel differently than their elders who created the situation.

I step away from the computer for a few hours, and an amazing discussion ensues! Curious about the deleted posts too...

What Bebe described is definitely true for us:

the physical/hormonal desire in men recycles daily (or more often) and that women (though capable of being physically receptive) don't necessarily recycle by physical need daily

After we have had great sex, I would probably feel like it again in about a week, whereas my partner would be up for it again the next day. At the moment we manage this by him masturbating on the days we don't have sex. Although I do know couples whose libidos are much better matched, and others where the woman's is much higher, so I would be careful about generalizing too much about this.

And yeah, monogamy. In theory I would be open to us exploring a less monogamous situation (not in the same house I don't think - I do like my teepee Christine :)) But there are definitely some practicalities that would need to be worked out: STDs and who gets what night to name a couple. And then there would always be the risk that one of us would want to take up more permanently with another. So, not a decision to be taken lightly.

Cheers to you wonderful whole women!

for your response about establishing fatherhood and maintaining healthy vaginal flora. So you see why it wouldn't work that way -- with concurrent multiple husbands. I wonder, Christine, in how many of the matriarchal societies you've studied are the women serial monogamists.

Anyway, I only meant to address the problem of men wanting to have sex more often than women.

I am a little confused as to what you are saying here? We were talking about an imbalance in the sexual drive between partners. Your arguments why multiple, concurrent partners for a woman won’t work are not based upon the satisfaction of the woman’s sexual need but the possible effect this will have on the confusion of the true patriarchy for any babies and the dubious bad health of her vagina. This is an unfair argument because it does not apply to men who have multiple partners. As to one man shared amongst various women, I don’t find this an ideal situation any more than would the younger men left without a woman. I don’t see where the dominant male position in animal packs is a good model for people. It certainly leaves the women involved in an infantile state (emotionally speaking), and the dominant male in an imbalanced one (spiritually speaking). Neither condition is healthy.

I don’t know where most people stand in regards to open marriage. Marriage would certainly have to take on a broader definition than exclusivity. To do this for reasons only to satisfy the sexual needs of one partner is to place the sexual need of one partner above all other needs of both partners. Is this what is most important about marriage: the opportunity for and satisfaction of frequent sexual activity? Or is marriage about companionship, intimate support and helping each other grow? Can these other important needs be sustained? One, I would think, would have to examine what marriage means to them personally before taking this step. If the most important thing about marriage for the less driven partner is the holding together of the relationship, does loosening the bonds of monogamy preserve the fundamental elements of the relationship intact enough to satisfy both partners?

Sorry, Curiousity, that I missed your post before my last answer. You got what I was saying about the ratio and mine with my husband also works out to about 1:7 days. I wasn't really suggesting open marriage with unfamiliar partners, though. The dangers of STD's are real, and I would consider it adulterous and unfaithful. I was actually limiting the solution to (for example) a 1:7 ratio of man to women to solve the discrepancy of cyclical sexual desire between men and women in an inclusive or agreed upon familial relationship. I agree that there should be caution in applying generalizations (men want more sex than women); but if we're talking about numbers and anecdotal evidence, I don't think it's a rash generalization for the purposes of this discussion.

Don't let my supporting arguments confuse you, Fab, about the basic premise....solving the numbers problem. As for male dominance, gee, don't we all know that women dominate, Fab? The hand that rocks the cradle..... Maybe we should get real and call our society what it is....matriarchal. Honestly, my husband expects me to be his equal in understanding, in the ability to stand on principles, in responsibility for the family and for our relationship, in making decisions and carrying them out, and so on. I still consider myself to be subject to this characterization of woman/wife, that it's not only my duty to be competent in these things but to be willing is my pleasure. That's good for me and for him. I have been meditating on the benefit of putting others before myself, not in a sacrificial way but in a way which helps me to identify needs. Identifying others needs helps me to identify my own, and it is a wonderful thing to find that in moving toward fulfilling the other I find my own fulfilled!

As to satisfying sexual needs, hasn't it already been said that to be free of an obligatory schedule of sex makes us both more receptive and responsive? When we're nesting, when we're uncomfortable with our POPs, when our libido is especially low, but when we know our husbands want and need sex, how can we find that relaxed freedom? It's not a light thing with me to consider that monogamy as we do it in our legal and religious society is unnatural and to wonder if our natural cycles don't indicate that there's another way that is wholesome and not condemning.

Yes, Christine, free sex. It's funny that the word 'fornication' has come to mean 'sex outside of marriage' or free sex. The root of the word from classical Greek had to do with marketing, trafficking in sex. Far from free! Sex should be free in that it should be freely enjoined without extortion of either the conscience or the wallet. It should never be without discretion/discrimination, however.

I do take exception to the equation of "spiritual" with oppressive and incestuous cults. They may call themselves spiritual, but we should not let them confuse us with false identifications and definitions. It gives spirituality a bad name and it seems better to me to ignore it or refute it than to take up it's banner and propagate the falsehood.

That's why I made the original disclaimer of not being a denominational or cult member of any kind. I anticipate being identified with them in bringing up the subject of polygamy, but I won't give up my right ground of asking questions and raising arguments in order to avoid being falsely labeled. I expect you all here to be able to read, comprehend, and tell the difference when you've considered it.

Man by his very nature is spiritual. That we cannot see spirituality in the mass murderer, in the incestuous cult’s patriarch, in the dictator is quite correct; a true perspective. They have lost their way, they have failed to develop their spiritual side, they have allowed their dark side to gain hegemony over their will and that is why they are able to behave in ways that are abhorrent to the majority of us.
But no, I do not believe we are a matriarchal society, and if that were a reality I would grieve equally for that as I should do a patriarchy. Equality means individuality. It does not have its basis in dependency. Equality means sharing and division of labour; much what Alemama’s article was talking about. If a man or woman expects to be looked after and their partner obliges to meet their need to their own detriment and not their fulfillment then they both have lost their way. Things have become skewered and we must work to correct them. Of course when a partner is ill, choices become limited.
I did not mean to associate you with any cult. I took your number ratio seriously, but I could not agree to your conclusion. So why did you come to that conclusion if you hate the obvious example so much?

It's so interesting to see how a concept like love can be so debased through shaming. I was talking about love...wild, beautiful, passionate, responsible, spiritual, beyond satisfying love. Even in the 21st century, when it happens to a woman outside marriage (and it happens to the best of us, Bebe) pure female love is equated with whoring. Did it have its complications? No doubt...it is something I would never do again. But it remains a precious jewel in my heart and not something I feel the least bit of shame about.

There is the example of doing it wrong (oppressive cults) and there is an ideal that I presented with the suggestion that some may have come close to the ideal and found satisfaction with that lifestyle. I wish I had referred to it as an idea and not an ideal. (It would be ideal to me that women should be friends and not competitive.) Anyway, that's the problem with labeling and not differentiating and why it becomes necessary to make disclaimers on all sorts of things.

I agree with you that equality comes with individuality. Individual competence and responsibility is what I described above in my marriage. It creates a relationship in which each can depend on the other and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not ready to throw away monogamous marriage. We've been married for 31 years and raised four children together. We've talked about the things that are brought up in this thread. We examine all things together. I have the same reservations about the subject I brought up as most of you do. I'm open to changing my mind about what religious authorities tell us is right and wrong. There are things I find distasteful in my own conscience and things I'm certain are right and good and they don't always fit with the norm, but I think it's my responsibility to examine all things and decide. One of the things I've considered is that women could be friends/sisters in a relationship with one man and be happy with it and that it would not necessarily be perverse to nature or abhorrent to the spirit which created us and gave us this nature.

Wish I hadn't made the shot about ours being a matriarchal society. It's too big to discuss here.

Man by his nature is flesh and seeking spirit. God is spirit. Man can unite with God in being reborn. That's what I mean by spiritual. Coming to that is a process so I can understand your reference to a spiritual side (which I take you to mean as good) and a dark side (which is indeed abhorrent). To be united with God in his spirit to me means (in part) to find satisfaction and contentment in a natural body using it according to it's natural function and having the inner locus of control that disallows misuse. I consider oppression and incest abhorrent. Yes, I would hate to be identified with or to BE that, but I didn't get that from your posts.

Sincerely, Bebe

I was following this thread up to a point yesterday, then had to leave for quite some time. When I returned, some comments had been deleted, one of which was the first post by Wantmylifeback. I want to tell her how much I loved her post. WMLB, I don't know why you felt you had to delete it, you expressed some wonderful things, one of which I was going to comment on, though I won't now. Hope you come back and didn't get scared off the forum! Hugs - Surviving

All good questions Fab, and ones that necessarily must be contemplated deeply.

For the record I am not married. This might boil down to semantics, and I know other people (most other people?) see things differently, but in not making a promise that is supposed to last forever I feel like we come to our relationship everyday with the intention to make it the best it can be, with no guarantees of permanence, no guarantees of anything in fact.

(And damn, I've even more intrigued by the deleted posts now, can't we have them back? :-))

Your encouragement towards me in this VERY difficult time in my life has made a difference beyond measure! I am so very thankful for ur support! I have severe PTSD n aspergers. I get extremely nervous when talking or in this case texting in public. To top it my sons iPod does this thing where it will automatically put in words it thinks I'm typing even when they aren't the words I meant. I deleted my post bc it gave a message that I wasn't trying to give. What I meant to say is that I am happy w my one husband n he his happy w just me. I could never be in a relationship where there were other women w my man. But I do know people who live wonderful conductive lives w a man who has other women. They are happy. My point is that each person must do what is best for their family n by their spiritual beliefs if any! I also mentioned some of my cures for the original question about not being in the mood. When I am not in the mood but my husband is I ask him to rub my body all over n when he takes his time n I feel the love n effort he puts into it I usually get turned on. Also I agree w another post about housework. When my husband does housework for me for no reason it really turns me on! Also I told my husband that foreplay starts in the morning the minute we wake up!!!! Sometimes the things I want to say sound right in my head n get jumbled on the way out so if something is hurtful I definitely did NOT mean it that way. I would never want to offend any of you amazing women here n I am so GRATEFUL to be considered a member here!

duplicate post edited by Louise

I am soooooooo awful at this Internet stuff!! I accidentally posted my post twice I'm so very sorry!!!

a few things Bebe. You are right, the dark side in general usage normally means bad things in our nature probably exemplified to most people’s satisfaction in the Star War movies. The shadow on the other hand consists of all the repressed things in our lives and these are individual, and in most people are a mixture of both good and bad things. So that in our journey through life we come to stages or critical events in life which pose conflicts for us which cause us to rethink some of the feelings which we have repressed, or else risk being led astray by our further repression of the crisis. A commonly experienced example is the mid-life crisis. A successful passage through this time can sometimes allow us to accommodate things which we were unable to beforehand or conversely come to a truer perception of ourselves. When I say successful, I don’t necessarily mean without pain. But yes, the spiritual nature of mankind is explicit in their quest for wholeness exemplified or symbolised in marriage (either common-law or legal and church sanctified) and worked on so that the unification of the many aspects of the self independently of the spouse is ultimately achieved. I think this unification of the psyche may account for the special appeal that some old people have in their humility, detachment and good humour.

yes I have heard people talk in this manner about common law marriage before; no chains, no high expectations, enjoyment of what the day presents. Maybe, our attitude in these matters depends a lot on our experience with relationships and our particular needs and our ability to accommodate certain aspects. You have probably realised that my approach to relationships has the need for surety and social sanction. I know where that is coming from in my history. Also, I have a great aversion to being controlled; this is part genetic, part nurture and part personal experience. Some people would refer to it as a chip on the shoulder or a problem with authority and they would be partly right. But I would not want in my relationship someone who wishes to control or manipulate me. That does not mean that I would never experience or countenance it, we have to be realistic about these things: they are a part of life and social contact. Other people are happy to wear manipulation and authority, and I suspect that is also due to their particular life experience. Whenever, I have asked about these things, the responses I have received have been similar to one particularly articulate one “well you cop it in the expectation that you one day will be in the superior position yourself”. I was unable to accept this as a valid answer for myself because I never wanted one day to be in the superior position with an equal. Just on this, it would seem to lie on what one’s basic motivation is. I know McClelland talked about power, achievement and affiliation.

How this thread has weaved around! I tried to focus but I think you lost me :)
1:7? Really? Do you think that is mostly the way it is?

and yes, that article I posted pointed out some available subjects for study and comparison as far as what problems occur in a marriage as a result of gender and what issues are universal. Thought it curious the statistic about women initiating divorce the larger percentage of time. And of course the chore sharing etc was fun to think about how it's approached in our house. We seem to do our fair bit of stereotyping- trash and yard firmly not in my wheelhouse most of the time, everything else mostly shared.

I understand where you both are coming from in describing a committed relationship. I have been where Fab is, needing a secure commitment by the socially and legally accepted norm. To me (and, Fab, I'm really not trying to offend....trying not to and still express myself) .... Anyway, to me what Curiousity describes is a more committed relationship because it's alive and continues with commitment every day. My experience has been to get the legal marriage nailed down and then not to work at it and I want to do better than that. I think my husband and I have done pretty well but never quit growing and striving for a 'more perfect union'. (Sorry....these phrases just pop up and seem so appropriate except for trying to reconcile the contexts. WTF does the US Constitution have to do with this? Well, law and the pursuit of happiness and liberty.) I wish I could get across that this is what I think true marriage is....a living, continuing commitment, not a legal arrangement sanctioned by the church and state (and requiring monogamy to be the only definition of marriage). And furthermore it's what faith is, as you said Fab, marriage being the example of the relationship with God (one God, many believers). It's the difference between spirituality and religion, between law and grace. It is that between man and woman or between God and man(kind) the relationship should be real and intimate and exclusive to the parties involved (God, man, woman, etc.) without the control and manipulation or approval and sanction of any institution, whether it be church or state or any other (eg., family and 'society').

I love what you said about being in a superior position, about not wanting to, that is. It is so much the expectation that we submit ourselves to all sorts of humiliation and oppression, hoping some day to get to be the one on top. Pecking order, duh! It is exactly the wrong way to go about getting to the top....even if that were the goal. We are at the top, at our very best, when we do not desire to get up on anyone.

This is the last comment from me on this thread, but I woke up this morning thinking about wholeness and feeling the need to say a little more. Yes, we live in a culture where most people believe in a male God who loves some things and abhors others. And that we should behave in ways that please God and reflect the goodness that He established when He created the world. In the Beginning there was One Man and One Woman, what could be more obvious? Our societal codes of marriage reflect the religious underpinnings of our culture.

However, there are entire continents on the planet that do not believe in such a God, nor his works, nor his love, nor his wrath. The Navajo of the American Southwest, for instance, believe that Woman was the first sex. Then there was Man, and then there were the other Three Sexes, the numbers of which still reflect about 5% in the world. Everyone is revered. Biologically speaking, we are all female in the beginning. Louise had a wonderful epiphany, which I’m hoping she will share at some point, reflecting a similar primary female structure in nature.

What I awoke thinking about was the notion that we are made whole by our marriages to one man (and I presume this belief would extend to a non-gender-biased one “person”). While marriage is no doubt an excellent way to evolve the person and the Soul, I do not believe it can be equated with Wholeness. A woman is Whole in and of herself. She is Whole living with her art, her animals, her garden, with Nature, her Soul and Cosmic Consciousness. She needs nothing more than herself and her world to Be.

This is very important to consider, as many women for whom husbands and children were everything are left by themselves in the end. Many others have always been single. Everything changes and women need to know they are Whole regardless of changing outer circumstances, societal norms, or religious commandments.

Yes, I think for me, knowing that I can leave allows me to choose to stay, if that makes sense. I am coming to the relationship fresh every day. There is no promise to an external authority keeping me there. And I do not and have not ever felt that a relationship with another person makes me whole.

But that doesn't mean that there are no expectations Fab, far from it. We have the expectation of honesty and truth, sharing chores and child raising, being financially responsible, etc etc. It's interesting that you link an aversion to being controlled to getting married. I think I would see it the other way around, but perhaps I am not sure what you mean.

And Wantmylifeback, yes, we do the massage thing too! It's really wonderful for me because it gives me an hour or two to get relaxed and aroused. I can't think how you would have thought that would be offensive. Keep posting!

Marriage certainly doesn't make ME whole but my constant connection with my creator (who is neither a man nor a woman) does. I have a sense of contentment and happiness that nothing can take away - not the loss of a precious child, or a beloved husband, or even my very cherished uterus God almighty fo'bid! Praying and returning to him five times a day grounds me and gives me a wholeness that frees my heart from latching on too strongly to things that will not always be there.

Oh and Polygamy is common in my part of the world and I've seen it in practice many times but I'm not sure I've ever seen co wives who have sisterly love for one another. Tolerance, grudging respect- maybe. But love! Heheh. No. I imagine my husband getting a second wife and I feel like giving them both a good walloping but what I feel even more strongly is that sense of wholeness that is mine and can never be taken away by a creation of the creator.