Why did you get married?
Replies
-
Isn't open relationship enough for this? why "marriage" with those parameters ?
Again OP, here’s another delineating point between your culture and mine … Traditional marital boundaries, permissable access and markers of conservatism (“towing the line”) obviously differ via interpretation. What matters to the public (ie extended family and community) - one’s public face doesn’t necessarily translate to your marital bed. A married couple observes the Christian morals of the dictates of marriage, publicly. Privately, we are tasked with “handling the spouse,” however he or she comes, gender and exposure determined. It is a traditional tribal union; 9 times out of 10, he or she does not meet the Western romantised ideals of girl meets boy, woman meets man. No. There is an underlying gain for the man. Always. The woman is a booster. To help you understand, using the Indian Dowry Culture, the woman comes with her dowry, but is set apart from her dowry. She is still woman and the dowry are the assets. Comparatively, in my culture, the woman was part of the dowry, She was tradeable. We were currency before Christianity (Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism).
Open relationships within a marital union, in my opinion is too liberal with laxity, which easily can lead to sloppiness and mishandling. An open relationship in or outside a marital contract, with full disclosure is different. Consent with notification is paramount. Any plus one is vetted by the spouse. Rules and boundaries need to be adhered to. These aren’t always necessarily the case with open relationships. Oftentimes, it is a free for all; A panacea to sex addicts, really. What Person A (you) calls an open relationship, isn’t necessarily a qualifier for a definitive open marriage to me. When I do get married, how I define and maintain my marriage is between me and my husband, sans the labels. For some people, sex isn’t a priority. For others it is, needing thorough tabulation, even if to outside eyes and ears, it resembles an open relationship. Then one has to ask, who are we to cast judgement that a married couple desire pleasure, leisure and not just be sandbagged via the procreative decency rhetoric? When did the wife become the nominated prude? When did she become the sex withholding tyrant? When did the woman in a marital union become the anti-sex advocate? Why neuter a wife - why deny the woman in an open relationship the right to contractual marriage if that is what she desires, if he asks? When did the wife become the slated bore, so as to meet your statement - “Isn't open relationship enough for this? why "marriage" with those parameters?” Again - why can’t she be wedded? Are you indirectly castigating her to a lesser-woman state because she is not a virgin to the marital bed? Purity before marriage? How many women today, were virgins to their husbands?1 -
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »777Gemma888 wrote: »I have friends who let their wives know that if they are physically apart for 2 weeks, and she fails to make an attempt to join him, where he is earning money for their family ... She knows the consequences of not being present.
Disclosure! Disclosure! Disclosure!
ETA: Some of us are not opposed to playing with our men. Or play at the same time with set rules and boundaries.
If my husband wants to cheat, I have the right to watch them together, inasmuch as I would permit him the same access. I am his equal, his other half, his reflection. What he authorises for himself, are the very same liberties he allows me.
First bit - that's messed up imo and does not show any commitment on the part of the husband. A marriage is about more than "a piece of paper" or about the sex. If partner A chooses to travel for work, there should not be any obligation on partner B to show up and "service the needs" within 2 weeks or else partner A cheats. What if both partners work to support the family? What if partner A is away for work and partner B ends up in hospital with an accident? Oh, sorry but you weren't here to service me so I cheated on you. That's absolute rubbish, sorry.
Second bit - If a couple opts for an open marriage and agree to the terms of how it will work that's different.
Threats of "if you don't do X, I'm going to do Y" are not okay.
You are a dear Sugar! Initially, both my sister and I were shocked despite our very accommodating heritage with matters of the heart and marriage. I hail from a background and Western exposure knowing men who were very active with their wives fairly regularly, where their children complain, self included. Regularity is normal, like daily frequency. For families to have codes for decency’s sake isn’t a peculiarity.
Eg
A: “Where’s Mum & Dad?”
B: “Oh - Dad called for the code - Hand stitch.
A: “ Let’s give them space.”
Hand stitch = Sexy time.
I do understand where you’re coming from, knowing of the above-example. However, with my buddies who’d come to mind, upon sharing what I did with the OP, one would assume that they were cheaters. You’d be surprised. They had to be that aggressive with their wives because their stay-at-home Mum Wives, are the cheaters. They are women of leisure whose husbands have them want for nothing. If you were to know these gentlemen I speak of, it wouldn’t even compute. How does this happen? They’re not unattractive. For the husbands, their first choice to bed, are their wives. The wives however, would much prefer their alternatives first, of both genders. Therein comes the test when you’re the friend to one of the 2. Understand and love them as they are and as they come, without judgment. We can’t deny anyone their pleasures, however they define it, however they need it. They are the mothers of their children - what matters! Priority focus always is - protect the primary. Keep it together, even if, “she” is to be forced or bribed to make it to the fortnightly meet.
Precisely@open arrangement.2 -
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »777Gemma888 wrote: »I have friends who let their wives know that if they are physically apart for 2 weeks, and she fails to make an attempt to join him, where he is earning money for their family ... She knows the consequences of not being present.
Disclosure! Disclosure! Disclosure!
ETA: Some of us are not opposed to playing with our men. Or play at the same time with set rules and boundaries.
If my husband wants to cheat, I have the right to watch them together, inasmuch as I would permit him the same access. I am his equal, his other half, his reflection. What he authorises for himself, are the very same liberties he allows me.
First bit - that's messed up imo and does not show any commitment on the part of the husband. A marriage is about more than "a piece of paper" or about the sex. If partner A chooses to travel for work, there should not be any obligation on partner B to show up and "service the needs" within 2 weeks or else partner A cheats. What if both partners work to support the family? What if partner A is away for work and partner B ends up in hospital with an accident? Oh, sorry but you weren't here to service me so I cheated on you. That's absolute rubbish, sorry.
Second bit - If a couple opts for an open marriage and agree to the terms of how it will work that's different.
Threats of "if you don't do X, I'm going to do Y" are not okay.
I think the first part might be coming from a more patriarchal culture. (Correct me if I'm wrong @777Gemma888 ) Those of us in more Western cultures don't think it's ok, but it really wasn't long ago that this was very common in Western cultures too. And it was very likely an unspoken rule. Kind of like not agreeing to an open marriage but overlooking cheating as long as it isn't blatant or causes embarrassment. I would almost appreciate the heads up - at least they are clearly communicating expectations. If I think the expectations are *kitten*, I can always walk... In Western cultures anyway.
It is interesting that you should highlight this as it happens. Only 2 days ago now, during a funeral, 2 factions came to head over the result of such by-your-leaves. Despite wife 2 being wedded albeit years after wife 1 passed on, the generational stain of the term which was hurled at the 2nd unit from the same man, is that they have no right of access to mourn as their mother had loose nethers. They cheated without wife 1 consenting. The persons who’d involved themselves, have all passed on. The descendants arriving to mourn were drawn and quartered military style - think officers Vs non commissioned officers Vs regular infantry Vs civilians. Horrendous. Had to rewatch the Violence. The result of sloppiness. When couples play with no regard to its side-effects.
On one side of my family - it is patriarchal (paternal). On my mother’s side who are more Polynesian - we’re predominantly matriarchal, for over 6 generations but for the present, where my maternal grandmother chose to give the title/seat to her paternal grand-nephew and not my mother. Things get more confusing, if I was to address the liberties I could take as my mother’s child. You have spotlit the foundation of why we are consistently at loggerheads and behave in a manner more likened to Women’s Liberation, to combat and equate, so as to avoid being subjected to female humiliation. You’re either pampered (and do nothing) or humiliated, there is no middle. The abuse is more severe than what was portrayed in the movie “Coming to America” - the woof woof scene. Imagine crawling to your husband, in front of primary gathered guests and foreign dignitaries and sitting at his side, on the floor, like a dog would - eyes cast down.
I couldn't agree more slessofme, as I too would much prefer being looped in VS the alternative. Who wouldn't want to be "read in" with regards to his thoughts, considerations and intentions.0 -
xFunctionalStrengthx wrote: »You're looking at it from a Western culture viewpoint. There's other cultures, and it isn't necessarily wrong for this to occur due to distance and duration of them being in another country halfway around the world.
It’s very astute of you and slessofme to discern that our friends much like my sister and I aren’t all modern Western cultured individuals. The reason I say that is, that my male friends are NW Europeans, 1st generation Americans. I think inasmuch as we are nurtured by what is our cultural norms and adaptations with how we handle/mishandle our Western (American) loves, our friends are pretty much guilty of the same folley, where their European cultures might have lent diagnostic approaches to their marriages. It is difficult in my opinion for an outsider to think to control what 2 people who have elected to spend and build their lives together, cemented by the marital contract, to cast judgment with how such couples choose to “handle” what they allow in their marital bed.
Many I think are detached from having to address the issue of separation because of a job. I hail from a country, with a youth majority, most of whom when employed are contracted overseas. One of the 2 is in the islands, the other abroad and it’s not even deployment as an American military spouse would understand. He or she is based in a foreign country. He or she and the children are in the Pacific. They have to discuss sex. They have to discuss boundaries. You have to step over lines you wouldn’t want to consider, had you worked in the same city. As a former Marine, you would be aware of the stress your deployments had on your ex-wife and your children(?) It’s never easy because when you’d returned, they had you with them at home. How often did you get work leaves? (They only get to go home then). There always is a lot of loneliness on all sides. Someone has to give.0 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »Isn't open relationship enough for this? why "marriage" with those parameters ?
Again OP, here’s another delineating point between your culture and mine … Traditional marital boundaries, permissable access and markers of conservatism (“towing the line”) obviously differ via interpretation. What matters to the public (ie extended family and community) - one’s public face doesn’t necessarily translate to your marital bed. A married couple observes the Christian morals of the dictates of marriage, publicly. Privately, we are tasked with “handling the spouse,” however he or she comes, gender and exposure determined. It is a traditional tribal union; 9 times out of 10, he or she does not meet the Western romantised ideals of girl meets boy, woman meets man. No. There is an underlying gain for the man. Always. The woman is a booster. To help you understand, using the Indian Dowry Culture, the woman comes with her dowry, but is set apart from her dowry. She is still woman and the dowry are the assets. Comparatively, in my culture, the woman was part of the dowry, She was tradeable. We were currency before Christianity (Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism).
Open relationships within a marital union, in my opinion is too liberal with laxity, which easily can lead to sloppiness and mishandling. An open relationship in or outside a marital contract, with full disclosure is different. Consent with notification is paramount. Any plus one is vetted by the spouse. Rules and boundaries need to be adhered to. These aren’t always necessarily the case with open relationships. Oftentimes, it is a free for all; A panacea to sex addicts, really. What Person A (you) calls an open relationship, isn’t necessarily a qualifier for a definitive open marriage to me. When I do get married, how I define and maintain my marriage is between me and my husband, sans the labels. For some people, sex isn’t a priority. For others it is, needing thorough tabulation, even if to outside eyes and ears, it resembles an open relationship. Then one has to ask, who are we to cast judgement that a married couple desire pleasure, leisure and not just be sandbagged via the procreative decency rhetoric? When did the wife become the nominated prude? When did she become the sex withholding tyrant? When did the woman in a marital union become the anti-sex advocate? Why neuter a wife - why deny the woman in an open relationship the right to contractual marriage if that is what she desires, if he asks? When did the wife become the slated bore, so as to meet your statement - “Isn't open relationship enough for this? why "marriage" with those parameters?” Again - why can’t she be wedded? Are you indirectly castigating her to a lesser-woman state because she is not a virgin to the marital bed? Purity before marriage? How many women today, were virgins to their husbands?
Comparing to your writing skills mine seems like elementary level so bare with me if I misinterpreted something.
What I feel like is- you and I are on the same line of thought however, you don't mind all of that being part of "marriage" however, I feel like -it shouldn't be called marriage because we have had our brains washed as to what a "marriage" should be and that's why I asked you that. Now it is apparent, I was wrong and you were/are right.
If I look at my ancestors or my lineage. (Way back in time) Most had two "wives" - and they were "married" to both. Equal love on all sides. Kids did not have any resentment or hatred towards anyone because this was "normal".
There are been "stories" or "mythology" where woman also had more than 1 husband. Now I'm treading in uncharted territory so I'm unsure if it's mythology or true story.
About "Indian women and dowry" -so lol -this is how outside world views it eh- funny. Although it started with the fact that- in Hindu religion- boy and girl were both treated equally- little more power was given to women because they were considered the stabilizing energy vs men who were considered raw energy. When a woman was being married off- she would get her "share" or "part" of the will. Back in the day -boy's family used to send expensive gifts and jewelry to girl's parents. Showing that- "please allow us to bring your daughter home as a bride and look we can take care of her".
With times, things changed, infiltration of culture - now they show off- dude's education or income stream and parties have started "requesting" gifts. Now it's so bad that greed has totally taken over some families that from outside view it looks like "women came with dowry". BTW When a man and woman marry here- two income streams join together -don't they?
I, agree with you. Since marriage is our concept then why can we not dictate "what's included" in it. Who's to say marriage means 1 man and 1 woman. It could be 1 man with several women or 1 woman with several men. It could also mean man and woman plus the occasional partner. We created "marriage" we can dictate what goes in it.
Obviously we need a partner who is down for all that-however, since we have been "brain-washed" with the "concept" of marriage and what is means- it seems very "weird" talking about all these things under the umbrella of "marriage". People just choose to have multiple partners outside of "marriage" so as to avoid miscellaneous questions.
Look how humanely and calmly everyone is discussing all this here- versus what an uproar would be if one chooses to indulge in an argument like this in real life. (I will try it during my family reunion though haha)
We have been on the same line of thought however, I was just not phrasing it right. Also, I was just talking about the same parameters however you spoke from a culture which accepted that and I am speaking from my present culture which is western not ancestral one.
I, need to take some writing classes.0 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »xFunctionalStrengthx wrote: »You're looking at it from a Western culture viewpoint. There's other cultures, and it isn't necessarily wrong for this to occur due to distance and duration of them being in another country halfway around the world.
It’s very astute of you and slessofme to discern that our friends much like my sister and I aren’t all modern Western cultured individuals. The reason I say that is, that my male friends are NW Europeans, 1st generation Americans. I think inasmuch as we are nurtured by what is our cultural norms and adaptations with how we handle/mishandle our Western (American) loves, our friends are pretty much guilty of the same folley, where their European cultures might have lent diagnostic approaches to their marriages. It is difficult in my opinion for an outsider to think to control what 2 people who have elected to spend and build their lives together, cemented by the marital contract, to cast judgment with how such couples choose to “handle” what they allow in their marital bed.
Many I think are detached from having to address the issue of separation because of a job. I hail from a country, with a youth majority, most of whom when employed are contracted overseas. One of the 2 is in the islands, the other abroad and it’s not even deployment as an American military spouse would understand. He or she is based in a foreign country. He or she and the children are in the Pacific. They have to discuss sex. They have to discuss boundaries. You have to step over lines you wouldn’t want to consider, had you worked in the same city. As a former Marine, you would be aware of the stress your deployments had on your ex-wife and your children(?) It’s never easy because when you’d returned, they had you with them at home. How often did you get work leaves? (They only get to go home then). There always is a lot of loneliness on all sides. Someone has to give.
My apologies if I made it sound as if it was an open/closed definition. Wasn't my intention. As the world grows smaller in terms of separation of cultures, there is bound to be more blending of values and ideology"borrowed" from different cultures.
I work in IT now, and am exposed to many different cultures. Primarily from India, Pakistan, as well as Chinese, Philippines and other Eastern Asian areas. It is interesting to learn of different cultures to me, at least from a outsider view. I like to learn some of the basics in terms of key social points, that might impact our professional relationship and atmosphere.
It may seem a little shallow. But, I know each culture can be steeped in tradition and history that can take years to understand. My thoughts are to keep it simple, respect each other's cultures and differences so as to allow for a more positive work environment
Regarding the distance discussion with regards to sex outside the marriage, I know of it from both military experience as well as from my IT career and working with others. Even without those, I think it is closed-minded to apply a Christian based view onto another without knowing or understanding the cultural differences. Even then, if one still disagrees, respect their culture.
0 -
Because I wanted to2
-
Because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. I’ve questioned my decision many times, but we’ve trudged through life like soldiers and I love her❤️5
-
What I feel like is- you and I are on the same line of thought however, you don't mind all of that being part of "marriage" however, I feel like -it shouldn't be called marriage because we have had our brains washed as to what a "marriage" should be and that's why I asked you that. Now it is apparent, I was wrong and you were/are right.
English isn’t your primary language OP, neither is it mine. ☺️ However English is my 4th language and as it happens, my 1st of Western languages, which was used in my home about an eighth of the time. Don’t worry yourself overmuch, for there are a few of us in here, who aren’t native speakers per se.🤗
I do agree that our thoughts on marriage are somewhat concurrent OP. Some in my culture, I would hazard a guesstimate, around 95% of the standing population, would rather not follow what tradition can allow for certain clans. They are too steeped in Christianity. Over the past few years, Christianity has muddied and destroyed, not only our heritage but also our sacred artifacts, deeming them evil, which is exploitative. I could only imagine the depths they'd go to, to vilify marital practices, using Christianity to levelise the hierarchical structure, as in, the insults will come "up the leash,' not "down the leash."
Should it be called “marriage?” My culture doesn’t call it “marriage,” moreso “a fusion” of 2 families, clans, tribes and nations, loosely translated, fortifying the alliance so to speak. The belief is, together you create synergy, more than just the 2 individuals becoming one. This is a closer knitted bond then what the Western culture will recognise as the legal definition of family. We all become each other’s primary family. The term “extended” is foreign.
Whyever should it not be called marriage? Our term for marriage directly translated is “grafted” like the plant graft. Two separate plants grafted, becoming the one plant, so my linguistic term for marriage really isn’t marriage either. It’s simply the universal term we all use, when we’re speaking English. In our native tongues - No. We do have a more modern term, many do not use.1 -
If I look at my ancestors or my lineage. (Way back in time) Most had two "wives" - and they were "married" to both. Equal love on all sides. Kids did not have any resentment or hatred towards anyone because this was "normal".
I come from a Principal Wife culture, even with my matrilineal side, where a woman did and can lead, if she is the first born. Fortunately, this is skipping my mother lol [Exhale]😄🤣😄. In academic texts, many of the women from my culture referred to as wives were not. They were consorts, if children resulted. Beyond that, even if gifted to a man of high birth, she would be housed along with her people in a section where concubines resided. We call them “the bed softeners” (a direct translation), which really is the modern day mattress for the man in context. There is no way that a plus-one, would’ve been perceived as the primary wife. The primary wife can only be replaced after death. We are less civilised than your kinfolk were and still are. Unfortunately, we are savage to the core. The terms of reference for a wife were (i) principal wife (ii) consorts (iii) gifted concubines (iv) traditional bed warmers.0 -
There have been "stories" or "mythology" where woman also had more than 1 husband. Now I'm treading in uncharted territory so I'm unsure if it's mythology or true story.
Mythology in your part of the world, a fact in mine. Think that is the root cause behind many of my female ancestors’ descendents protests against the conventional dictates of modern Christian marital dictatorial methodologies. Why must we conform? To appease whom? As it is, they are burning and destroying our archeological and archival property, thinking to wipe out our history, our footprint. In 10 years, my direct ancestor will be a myth too.0 -
About "Indian women and dowry" -so lol -this is how outside world views it eh- funny. Although it started with the fact that- in Hindu religion- boy and girl were both treated equally- little more power was given to women because they were considered the stabilizing energy vs men who were considered raw energy. When a woman was being married off- she would get her "share" or "part" of the will. Back in the day -boy's family used to send expensive gifts and jewelry to girl's parents. Showing that- "please allow us to bring your daughter home as a bride and look we can take care of her".
With times, things changed, infiltration of culture - now they show off- dude's education or income stream and parties have started "requesting" gifts. Now it's so bad that greed has totally taken over some families that from outside view it looks like "women came with dowry". BTW When a man and woman marry here- two income streams join together -don't they?
😀 I highlighted the Indian Bride with her dowry to punctuate my comparative. In our cultural practice, both sides gift or contribute towards the marriage. The expectation is, that you can call on your generational family (refer to my other reply for definition of family), to follow the bride or the groom, depending. For us it’s a competition. A game for the organisers. Which tribe surfaces as the most triumphant through gifting? Spies are dispatched to the groom’s or the bride’s gifting committees. If spies are caught, he or she will be ragged akin to sorority/fraternity initiations. There will be no mercy and there will be steep fines (monetary to be added to wedding coffers) for being a double-agent. Gifts can range from a home (furnished), usually in the village on tribal grounds, to ensure they have property, some land to till, means of transportation (usually a boat), then emergency food supplies to last the couple an entire year, so as to remove the burden of having to pay for it themselves. Modern laws have been implemented in the country, where our young men are no longer permitted to marry, without having built a legal cottage in their villages, to house their prospect wives. They are also required to have forms of employment, where they do have a superannuation account. Not all jobs require this, hence the emphasis.
This is not to say that many have not tried to bypass it. The Government merely nullifies it, so it behooves them to follow the law.0 -
With times, things changed, infiltration of culture - now they show off- dude's education or income stream and parties have started "requesting" gifts. Now it's so bad that greed has totally taken over some families that from outside view it looks like "women came with dowry". BTW When a man and woman marry here- two income streams join together -don't they?
For us, the academic and professional considerations of the spouse are modern, however it is set on traditional principles, that is, is he a good provider post the handover from father to husband? The Groom is entrusted with her care. He is meant to care for her, as much as her father did or better. In my culture, time has been kind. It is only one house and one extra mouth to feed - the Bride, granted in ancient times the groom only supplied the land where the bridal community would be transplanted furnished by her father.
Today, the combined kin assist the 2 VS her father furnishing her with all of it - her mini kibbutz; a self servicing boutique community, merely transplanted to the Groom’s tribal estate, now his property, people included who are called “the hands who work for her comfort.” We treat the descendants of those who'd accompanied ancestors like family, to this day. I think it’s the change in the times, where we perceive them as family VS the help.0 -
I, agree with you. Since marriage is our concept then why can we not dictate "what's included" in it. Who's to say marriage means 1 man and 1 woman. It could be 1 man with several women or 1 woman with several men. It could also mean man and woman plus the occasional partner. We created "marriage" we can dictate what goes in it.
Obviously we need a partner who is down for all that-however, since we have been "brain-washed" with the "concept" of marriage and what it means- it seems very "weird" talking about all these things under the umbrella of "marriage". People just choose to have multiple partners outside of "marriage" so as to avoid miscellaneous questions.
Precisely@1st paragraph. It is your life. It is your marriage. She is your new immediate family. Your primary immediate now, before your children. It matters not, what the extended after your union think. Society be damned.
It isn’t really a weird concept outside what already exists for some. Your inference to multiples, is what many might perceive as a form of polyamoury, only I think we are discussing a form of polyamoury where in the alternate world, it would be legal to marry all of them, where all are equal. Can it be done? Absolutely. Is it ideal? Not for everyone. Does it have benefits? Yes and … No. Will there be squabbles? But of course. Is it doable? Depends.
The problem with marriage and society is, that far too many noses think it is their place to quibble over a bed they have no right to pass judgment on. They are adults, who’ve chosen each other. What is right in their world and works in their world, will not be everybody’s cup of tea, or coffee, or soft drink. One merely has to peruse this site, to witness, the varying interpretations of one idea - eat less to drop weight. It’s about the approach. It’s about what works, for them (the couple), not you. Lurkers need not pass judgement in their private matters, especially their marital bed.0 -
Look how humanely and calmly everyone is discussing all this here- versus what an uproar would be if one chooses to indulge in an argument like this in real life. (I will try it during my family reunion though haha)
We have been on the same line of thought however, I was just not phrasing it right. Also, I was just talking about the same parameters however you spoke from a culture which accepted that and I am speaking from my present culture which is western not ancestral one.
I’ve actually indulged myself in this conversation in person with both his parents present and his mother (may her soul rest in peace), as my lead-supporter. We’re of the same house from my patrilineal side you see. She thought it hilarious and entertaining, that I’d challenged him, his father, brothers and their elders over equality and privileges, before, during and after marriage, for we do talk about death, with specificity, his.
You need a Shield. Choose a grandparent or someone who is a respected member, who understands your humour, your personality, your challenging wit and your position. Run it through with them first, so they aren’t caught by surprise. In my case, my betrothed’s mother understood our family traits.0 -
xFunctionalStrengthx wrote: »My apologies if I made it sound as if it was an open/closed definition. Wasn't my intention. As the world grows smaller in terms of separation of cultures, there is bound to be more blending of values and ideology"borrowed" from different cultures.
I work in IT now, and am exposed to many different cultures. Primarily from India, Pakistan, as well as Chinese, Philippines and other Eastern Asian areas. It is interesting to learn of different cultures to me, at least from a outsider view. I like to learn some of the basics in terms of key social points, that might impact our professional relationship and atmosphere.
It may seem a little shallow. But, I know each culture can be steeped in tradition and history that can take years to understand. My thoughts are to keep it simple, respect each other's cultures and differences so as to allow for a more positive work environment
No apology necessary. 😀 I actually thought it was very gentlemanly of you to have articulated the cultural sensitivity needed, at the most intrinsic point I feel, with reference to the flow of viewpoints.
2 -
xFunctionalStrengthx wrote: »Regarding the distance discussion with regards to sex outside the marriage, I know of it from both military experience as well as from my IT career and working with others. Even without those, I think it is closed-minded to apply a Christian based view onto another without knowing or understanding the cultural differences. Even then, if one still disagrees, respect their culture.
Thank you!2 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »I, agree with you. Since marriage is our concept then why can we not dictate "what's included" in it. Who's to say marriage means 1 man and 1 woman. It could be 1 man with several women or 1 woman with several men. It could also mean man and woman plus the occasional partner. We created "marriage" we can dictate what goes in it.
Obviously we need a partner who is down for all that-however, since we have been "brain-washed" with the "concept" of marriage and what it means- it seems very "weird" talking about all these things under the umbrella of "marriage". People just choose to have multiple partners outside of "marriage" so as to avoid miscellaneous questions.
Precisely@1st paragraph. It is your life. It is your marriage. She is your new immediate family. Your primary immediate now, before your children. It matters not, what the extended after your union think. Society be damned.
It isn’t really a weird concept outside what already exists for some. Your inference to multiples, is what many might perceive as a form of polyamoury, only I think we are discussing a form of polyamoury where in the alternate world, it would be legal to marry all of them, where all are equal. Can it be done? Absolutely. Is it ideal? Not for everyone. Does it have benefits? Yes and … No. Will there be squabbles? But of course. Is it doable? Depends.
The problem with marriage and society is, that far too many noses think it is their place to quibble over a bed they have no right to pass judgment on. They are adults, who’ve chosen each other. What is right in their world and works in their world, will not be everybody’s cup of tea, or coffee, or soft drink. One merely has to peruse this site, to witness, the varying interpretations of one idea - eat less to drop weight. It’s about the approach. It’s about what works, for them (the couple), not you. Lurkers need not pass judgement in their private matters, especially their marital bed.
I , totally agree. I think it was my interpretations which made me think we were on different line of thought but we didn't.
I really appreciate you sharing all this here and with me. It was really good to learn something new and fresh.
Thanks again for sharing.1 -
I wanted a new surname! When I told someone what it was recently, they were like "Like the magazine?".....my married surname is Forbes
I also wanted to get married so why not?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions