The sex thread

[_KimberlyAnn]

I've managed not to comment on this thread until now, but it's in it's death throes and just is not complete without a video clip of the Divinyls classic, I Touch Myself.

The song shouldn't give even the smallest amount of offense to the most uptight Mormons on the board. It's all about monogamous self-touching. "I don't want anybody else, when I think about you I touch myself...". See? Perfectly appropriate.

Enjoy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zTneO6UgRuM

KA

[_harmony]

VERY interesting thread. Thanks to all major 'players'. As well those who toss in some spice, Moniker, Bond ;-)

Apart from the historicity of "marriage" in its several definitions, it is obvious that humans engage each other in "relationships". Sexual and otherwise. The boundries within which relationships are made, and exist, are more culturally defined than not.

That cultures are essentially tribal in nature, the norms often are not universally accepted from one tribe to another, or even between tribal members, as Harmony & Coggins exemplify. :-) BUT, there are common-goods, and common-bads to be found in all cultures that serve their needs well or otherwise.

It seems "Marriage", however it is defined, possibly worked better in the past than now?? Particularly in the USA. There seems to be some agreement in this, as stats are listed, and cries to safe guard the "traditional family" are heard from various establiments. Assuming such unsuccess, is it possible that reassessment of that tradition/institution is essential?? That the "traditional family" of one era does not transpose well to another??

It seems to me arguements, and/or discussion concerning the past, should be expansive rather than nit-pickingly entrenching. Change is inevitable. How that change is understood and accomodated is preferred to it being misunderstood, and resisted.

Generally speaking, the latter being more the norm of the tribe than the former. "...Looking for love in all the wrong places..." some western lament of decades ago that is probably more insightful than most sermons. Begging the question "why?" The answer simplistically, "failure of the traditional family." IMSCO. Warm regards, Roger

What we see as the "traditional family" isn't traditional at all, at least, not once one opens a history book. Go back a few hundred years, open the book to "peasantry" and see what I mean. We tend to take the rules for the rich in ancient societies and extrapolate them across the rest of society, and it simply did not work that way... not for marriage, not for families, not for owning property, not for much of anything. It works today because the dynamic is so much different than it was back then. But those who had power did everything they could to retain that power, and those who had no power (which was the vast majority) did everything they could to avoid getting crushed. Slaves, serfs, indentured servants, fostered sons, apprentices, peasants all had no money and no rights. they existed for the purpose of serving their masters, and they were paid only room (a hovel with perhaps blanket on the floor that one shared with several others) and board (gruel and stale bread as the norm), if they were lucky.

The family as we know it did not exist as a cultural norm, except for the richest of the rich. Marriage as we know it did not exist, except for the rich who had property to protect. Goodnightshirt! Where do you think the phrase "common law marriage" came from?

Good grief, folks. Take a class on Marriage in Society. It's in the Sociology dept. And then take a class on Law and Society. That's in the Sociology department too. They'll be 300 and 400 level classes, and should be available at any univerisity. Then come back and we'll have a discussion.