|
Post by carl on Dec 18, 2018 21:35:48 GMT -5
Humans have lived out cruel ways in the past. Imagine the way people behaved in medieval times. I am sure nobody would want me to mention any examples. Such prejudices and injustice. We have moved on so much but it seems strange that in today’s world people can become trapped in such dehumanising relationships. With little recognition or openness in society to acknowledge the problem sometimes it feels to me that we are still very much living in the past. A cruel uncivilised past. Hiding secrets of deep suffering because there seems nobody to tell and only the fear of being judged. A SM makes no sense. There are no winners and it serves no purpose. Like so many of the strange things people have done to one another in the past. So in the future will people come to terms with this problem and be free to talk about it without being judged. Maybe society will help people in the future to find a humane life. And perhaps it will feel unacceptable to leave people to suffer like this as we do now when people suffer in other ways. Will future generations be smarter ?
|
|
|
Post by baza on Dec 18, 2018 22:38:38 GMT -5
By "dehumanising relationships" do you refer to ILIASM deals Brother carl ? In my jurisdiction such relationships exist - but there is no law that compels one to stay in such a situation. In fact in my jurisdiction there is a legal mechanism that recognises your right to dismantle a marriage. The mechanism may well cost you, both financially and emotionally, and may cause some great short term turmoil in your life, but none the less, the legal mechanism exists. Indeed about one third of marriages in my jurisdiction are ended by this mechanism. "Will future generations be smarter ?" - - - I'll give you long odds on that happening Brother carl . But as long as the state has the mechanism in place where you can get out of a dysfunctional marriage, the citizens can choose for themselves whether or not they wish to avail themselves of it. Some are prepared to pay the exit tariff (a perfectly legitimate choice) and some ain't prepared to pay it (another perfectly legitimate choice) and some others get it foisted upon them whether they like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Dec 19, 2018 6:06:22 GMT -5
Regarding shithole sexless marriages, the lifespan of a peasant was likely to be short. If I had died at thirty-four, I never would have realized what a failure my marriage was.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Dec 19, 2018 6:14:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Dec 19, 2018 6:42:02 GMT -5
“Will future generations be smarter ?”
With rare exceptions, everyone on iliasm lives in a jurisdiction in which divorce, typically no fault divorce, is possible. All that’s needed if burdened with a sm is to take advantage of it. While it’s not possible to make one’s spouse sexually desire you, it’s very possible to end the marriage and thus open one’s life to finding a compatible life partner.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Dec 19, 2018 6:50:14 GMT -5
Thank you, isthisit. One of our esteemed members, csl, has a website where he references Martin Luther's admonishment of refusing wives from 1522AD. The issue of either refusing spouse was brought up by Paul in the first century, detailed in 1 Cor 7:5. curmudgeonlylibrarian.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/addressing-the-sexless-marriage-part-1/I do not know how people handled this throughout the ages, but humans are by nature defective. Most recently, my eldest daughter, who chose to marry her high school sweetheart, and was attending a Christian university, was beaten by him. She chose divorce. Several people at her school tried to make the argument that divorce was not an option. Urgh. Some people are just determined to give the faith a bad name and get innocents killed in the process.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Dec 19, 2018 7:40:36 GMT -5
I am sorry she experienced that, and also you by proxy I guess. Christian or not I am sure you wanted to tear him a new one.
I live in a society which is secular and am very grateful for it.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Dec 19, 2018 8:06:01 GMT -5
I am sorry she experienced that, and also you by proxy I guess. Christian or not I am sure you wanted to tear him a new one. I live in a society which is secular and am very grateful for it. The altercation was over. I am a sheepdog, not a vigilante. I keep an eye on him through the internet, though, because I want to know he's not thinking about her. I find religion is much like alcohol. It's a good thing, when used in moderation. There is no belief system out there which can lock out the idiots.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Dec 19, 2018 8:26:56 GMT -5
“One of our esteemed members, csl, has a website where he references Martin Luther's admonishment of refusing wives from 1522AD. The issue of either refusing spouse was brought up by Paul in the first century, detailed in 1 Cor 7:5. ”
Those admonishments of refusing wives seem cruel to me since there was no effective birth control nor effective treatment for the many ailments that could make sex painful. Also, many women had no choice in whom they married and may have been saddled with unappealing husbands decades older. I suspect that for good reason there was lots less sex - including marital sex - in the old days.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Dec 19, 2018 8:33:41 GMT -5
“One of our esteemed members, csl, has a website where he references Martin Luther's admonishment of refusing wives from 1522AD. The issue of either refusing spouse was brought up by Paul in the first century, detailed in 1 Cor 7:5. ” Those admonishments of refusing wives t seem cruel to me since there was no effective birth control nor effective treatment for the many ailments that could make sex painful. Also, many women had no choice in whom they married and may have been saddled with unappealing husbands decades older. I suspect there was lots less sex - including marital sex - in the old days. I am thankful that sexless marriages were at least addressed, but, the first iterations of a solution are rarely correct. I am reminded of Sigmond Freud, who had plenty of wild postulates, but at least it was a starting place. My biggest issue with the early religious approach is that of creating desire which is not addressed. If one must beat their spouse with threats of hell-fire to have sex, it is not going to result in the kind of sex they really want.
|
|
|
Post by GeekGoddess on Dec 19, 2018 8:45:25 GMT -5
Brother carl - if you've not read the stories of sister darktippedrose, I would say have a read. Her posts enlightened me to some cultures still being rather draconian even while having internet access. I am so grateful to live in a society where I had the option of divorce. Even though it did create turmoil, and financial costs, it was totally worth the price tag.
|
|
|
Post by csl on Dec 19, 2018 9:43:48 GMT -5
“One of our esteemed members, csl, has a website where he references Martin Luther's admonishment of refusing wives from 1522AD. The issue of either refusing spouse was brought up by Paul in the first century, detailed in 1 Cor 7:5. ” Those admonishments of refusing wives seem cruel to me since there was no effective birth control nor effective treatment for the many ailments that could make sex painful. Also, many women had no choice in whom they married and may have been saddled with unappealing husbands decades older. I suspect that for good reason there was lots less sex - including marital sex - in the old days. Rabbis were cruel, too, then? As I pointed out in the third post of my Restoring Balance series, the rabbis of the Talmud not only defined sexual refusal, but imposed a fine and an eventual divorce if refusal continued (by either spouse). They beat Luther by at least 1200 years.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Dec 19, 2018 10:28:48 GMT -5
“Rabbis were cruel, too, then? As I pointed out in the third post of my Restoring Balance series, the rabbis of the Talmud not only defined sexual refusal, but imposed a fine and an eventual divorce if refusal continued (by either spouse). They beat Luther by at least 1200 years. ”
As I said before, before the advances of modern medicine there were good reasons to refuse sex: lack of birth control; dangers of pregnancy, painful sex due to lack of health treatments that are available today.
Keep in mind, too, that some faiths (perhaps not true for Judaism) forbid all forms of sex except missionary position.
Most of such good reasons for refusing sex don’t exist now at least in places with good medical care and effective birth control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2018 11:17:23 GMT -5
Regarding shithole sexless marriages, the lifespan of a peasant was likely to be short. If I had died at thirty-four, I never would have realized what a failure my marriage was. Priceless comment ironhamster!
|
|
|
Post by csl on Dec 19, 2018 11:41:30 GMT -5
Keep in mind, too, that some faiths (perhaps not true for Judaism) forbid all forms of sex except missionary position. Most of such good reasons for refusing sex don’t exist now at least in places with good medical care and effective birth control. Sects of all religions go even further, encouraging/demanding abstinence. Even a sect or two of Judaism. But sect-ions are not necessarily the whole.
|
|