Writes Jason Bilbrey, in "I Was Content With Monogamy. I Shouldn’t Have Been. Can exploring polyamory both break you and make you?" (NYT)(free access link).
"Like Corrie’s embrace of atheism, the prospect of having other partners seemed uncomplicated to her. Non-monogamy was a sign that our marriage was strong and could withstand threats.... My reintroduction to dating was a disaster. I spent the moments before my first date dry heaving in an alley behind the restaurant.... I started seeing an individual therapist and attending a men’s process therapy group. But perhaps most helpful was the exposure therapy of continuing our non-monogamy experiment. Jealousy was like a tight muscle that I learned to stretch and relax...."
Further into this process, they discover "the truth we both had pretended not to know: Corrie was gay." "She asked if we could stay married as platonic partners.... Our non-monogamy had given me the chance to explore what I wanted. And what I wanted was a monogamous relationship with Tamara...."
পোস্টগুলি
৭০টি মন্তব্য:
They both sound well adjusted. No need for attention from either of them.
Seeing a therapist would be a waste of time…
THe good thing is that it postpones the marriage transition from X to PG-13.
Oh gee, another "My Poly Experience" story. It would seem that the Times is absolutely addicted.
Dude/Pastor:
She just wants to fuck other men and/or women. Divorce her!
We are living in the end times.
And so said the Bohemians. And so said the Hippie communes in the 1960s. And so said the swingers in the 1970s. And so said Hugh Hefner. And so said the ancient Roman elite. And so said the Venetian partiers. And so said Caesars Palace patrons in Las Vegas.
As with investing "systems," it'll work just fine until it doesn't.
Corrie’s turn away from religion .. had been quick, uncomplicated and annoyingly joyful..
Corrie started identifying as bisexual, then pansexual, then queer.
Satan would have So Much PRIDE in her!
Hopefully (for Satan), she still does guys; so she can still murder her babies.
Serious Question: does Anyone think that either of them will be happier in the long run?
[not have more pleasure, not have more orgasms; be more happy?]
WHO are the happiest people in america?
WHO are the saddest? Who are the Most Depressed? Who have the highest rates of suicide?
I was wondering whatever happened to Letters to Penthouse. They have found a new outlet.
"Oh gee, another "My Poly Experience" story."
I get a Penthouse Letters vibe from these stories.
What a roundabout way to say "my wife and I decided to divorce and see other people after seven years".
At least she allowed him a nice transition though.
Literally NOBODY didn't see that coming, right?
Neither one had any sexual experience before they married. No surprise there would be a surprise. The polyamory was a gentle way of consciously uncoupling. They each had the other as a best friend while they explored and found other mates.
He is married to another woman and no longer non-monogamous. I’m curious about his ex-wife’s status.
The point of all these NYT cheating/poly stories is to normalize and mainstream that behavior.
One of my best friends runs a very large business in Omaha. One time we were talking about some people who we knew were cheating on their spouses and his remark was, "Who has the time?"
I think "Corrie is homosexual" is the story they tell to spare his reputation. The most likely explanation here is that she just wanted to sleep with other guys (and women, maybe) without getting divorced. The second most likely explanation and doesn't mean the first isn't true, too- he is the gay one in the relationship.
If he has turned her gay, then he needed the Kavorka to bring her back.
Your degree is worthless if it leads you to not need God
Can anyone tell me what "queer" actually means? Is it something different than gay/lesbian?
The family must be destroyed.
It was hard to get past "worship pastor bro" but I pushed myself, thinking there might be a point to this guy's column that would make that self-description make sense, maybe even give a Biblical perspective on marriage and monogamy.
Nope. And nope. At the end I just find myself wondering why he entered a post-graduate program in Theology in the first place. I know there are people who enroll in med school unsure of being a doctor and people who enter law school with no interest in being a lawyer or law professor but I find this guy's choices puzzling. And he seems kind of clueless. About God (points for capitalizing "Him" though), about the "Dear John" message in the original statement from his wife, about life in general.
Can anyone tell me what "queer" actually means?
Yes. "Look at me! Look at me! LOOK AT ME!!!"
He doesn't only need a therapist, he should start with a divorce lawyer and see how it goes.
To me, the most interesting sentence was "I could begin to imagine a life without God, but with my new, expensive master’s degree in theology, I struggled to imagine a career without Him."
Yikes. That's a moral quandary.
Sad.
No harm, no foul and goodbye to all that. Chateau Heartiste's Maxim (I forget the reference number) to always keep an extra lover stashed is again proved true. He's actually a lucky man.
Here is a proposition:
Marry someone you like and admire who shares most of your values and is willing to be unselfish in ordinary daily interactions. Be unselfish in ordinary daily interactions. Support and protect your spouse. Understand that you won't agree about everything. Be unambiguous in your commitment to the marriage.
Give it a go for fifty years, then get back to me.
AWFL!!!! It's so trendy now!!
Just get divorced. That’s what normal people do. And stop boring us with your physchoses.
Her turn away from religion was "quick, uncomplicated and annoyingly joyful." Not too much thought needed there. But as to sex, oh, yeah, that's complicated. From "bisexual, then pansexual, then queer." Maybe you need an owner's manual, or some set of instructions? At least.
" ... expensive master’s degree ... "
If my job was to council this "couple" I would require a balance sheet, income statements, spending history and list of financial obligations and recurring expenses.
I read the article. He briefly mentions their children. He says they're fine with the new arrangements. And God didn't make little green apples.
Dry heaving in back alleys isn’t my idea of great sex.
Such stories only make me smile. Do NYT thots really think their husbands are going to risk death against the MAGA hordes for them?
Now, any number of black and Hispanic minorities would cheerfully shoot someone if necessary, like non-urban whites would, but for their own reasons. The cartels especially will just take a smart step back before taking the bullets for suburban white liberals.
Yikes. That's a moral quandary.
There's no way to rectify those that provides for a meaningful career IMO. I mean you could teach "Theology" without God in your life. His statement is so puzzling in his ability to dismiss God personally, but not professionally? I mean once you push Him out of your life, what moral or internal guide says you need Him in your career?
Perhaps the most lucrative jobs require a God-centered role in the organization.
Men are too geared for sex. I almost feel sorry for them. ugh. what a burden.
sex sex sex....
NYT readers love those fallen Christians.
I'm certain this is exciting news to someone who cares.
When did the NYT turn into the Penthouse Forum?
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." - attributed to Saul Alinsky
Don't sweat the details. It's not supposed to make society stronger, or to make sense at all.
Hetero marriage gives way to Divorce Culture>>>Single Parenthood>>>Gay Marriage>>>Trans>>>Poly....
The point is permanent revolution. Permanent instability and the permanent need for leftist politicians to fix the problems the previous leftist politicians caused.
It's a testament to the NYT that not even this is the stupidest thing Althouse has read from them.
Blogger Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...
Men are too geared for sex. I almost feel sorry for them. ugh. what a burden.
sex sex sex...
She's the pansexual. She's the one saying she'll fuck anything for sex.
She’s just not that into you.
"We tried swinging on our way to divorce."
That's the actual story.
Intense interest in the sex lives of others is a sign that you have too much time on your hands.
That's a lot of words just to say the guy married a lesbian slut.
If you read the linked article, you encountered the sentence, "We would divorce later that summer."
He wanted monogamy. She foisted nonmonogamy on him. He had trouble adjusting, but when he did have sex with another woman, he loved her. His wife announced she was gay, and he realized he wanted to be in a monogamous relationship with a woman who wanted to be in sexual union with him. He got the divorce.
What are married couples supposed to do when one or both of them decides they do not want to be in a sexual relationship with the other?
The traditional answer is that they stay married and find the good in a sex-free relationship (or maybe that the one who doesn't desire sex should contribute some sex some of the time)... especially while there are young children.
I was waiting to see if this was from David French.
Yikes. That's a moral quandary
-----
Not a new or unique one.plenty of people are drawn to double down when faced with uncertainty: the man who joins the priesthood hoping to find a relationship with God; the woman who becomes a therapist in hopes that helping others will allow her to deal with her own demons; the couple who marry in an attempt to save a volatile relationship.
Romans 1:18-32 FTW. Again.
It's easier to ignore the truth and personal applicability of this passage if you conveniently decide to jettison any semblance of Christian faith.
The traditional answer is that they stay married and find the good in a sex-free relationship (or maybe that the one who doesn't desire sex should contribute some sex some of the time).
-----
The latter is the biblical answer: you have a responsibility and duty to care for your spouse and meet their needs, including sexually. Go condemn someone to a life of involuntary celibacy is cruel and abusive.
The reality is that most of the time, lack of interest in sex is a sign of mental or physical illness that is untreated, or a sign that something is wrong in the relationship.
A marriage needs to be based on some common understandings. If your spouse suddenly completely rejects your common religion, on which you base your entire understanding of the world, and then asks to sleep with other people, the situation is hopeless. The only common ground that remains is the two of you are technically married.
I am not sure how a devout Christian would not understand the concept that if you wife is asking to commit adultery and wants you to also commit adultery, the marriage is over. That's basic New Testament stuff.
Thank God he wrote about it in the NYT
tommyesq:
Can anyone tell me what "queer" actually means? Is it something different than gay/lesbian?
Certainly. It means "How dare you misgender me!" regardless of the description used.
Ann Althouse said...
"What are married couples supposed to do when one or both of them decides they do not want to be in a sexual relationship with the other?"
It depends on the couple, but from what I've seen, it almost always ends in divorce eventually.
I once knew a couple (who had small children) and the husband got severely injured and couldn't have sex. They tried to stay married and live together, but when the wife started bringing other men home, it quickly turned into a shitshow and they divorced.
Ahh, geez, that poor sad b*stard. But: That whole virgin marriage, seminary student, atheism pansexual thing: {Chef's Kiss}. Too bad they don't make'em like they useta. I hope he does find happiness, and keeps that friendship with the wierdo - it'll drive her crazier.
Transgender and transsocial incorporated in a union of immature wants. To be fair, there can be no discrimination for sexual orientations under the Democratic-established religion. Social conservatives want us to return to the days when polyamory, pedophilia, sodomy, sadomasochism, etc were celebrated in parades.
Fall out of love, out of lust, out of patience, or evolve with natural or catastrophic progression. Pehaps a "burden" forces irreconcilable differences and liability.
Ann asked: "What are married couples supposed to do when one or both of them decides they do not want to be in a sexual relationship with the other?"
Great question! How would we answer if he wanted to leave her because she was getting too old, or if he realized he was actually into redheads, or whatever? Why does it make a difference that someone "discovers" that they are gay, queer, bi, etc?
The traditional answer to Ann's questions is to keep one's marriage vows; you know, the till death do us part, in sickness and in health part?
PS: Interestingly, no mention that the effect on the children might be a factor in their decisions.
People act surprised that he studied theology, but it makes complete sense to me. Anyone who actually starts studying Protestant theology in earnest quickly realizes the whole thing is a fraud, and you either choose to reject the fraud, perpetuate it, or just make peace with the cognitive dissonance through blind faith. Protestantism is a dead end in the end.
One night, seven years into our marriage, she said, “Do you ever wish we had slept around a bunch in college before getting married?”
There was a time I'd say that was actually a smart idea. Date around and find out your likes and dislikes. Saving yourself for marriage is a bit overrated.
Now, I'd tell young men to not date any women in college. He's likely to be accused of rape because he leaned in for a kiss.
Ann Althouse said:
"To me, the most interesting sentence was 'I could begin to imagine a life without God, but with my new, expensive master’s degree in theology, I struggled to imagine a career without Him.'
Yikes. That's a moral quandary."
Exactly, a moral quandary.
What is the point of a religious leader who doesn't have any relationship with God or has decided God isn't real? I belonged to a Reform synagogue whose Rabbis were in the first group. They believed in God but never talked about any personal relationship with God and refused to discuss that topic in order to not offend the agnostics in the congregation. IOW it's up to the individual to decide what his/her relationship is with God and it's not required to have a relationship. Very liberal minded I suppose. I found the Rabbis there very uninspiring though. Morally it's the equivalent of the blind leading the blind, which is inadequate, imo.
But extraverts need other people. I guess that's why a lot of people weren't bothered by this moral quandary and how you can get a pastor/rabbi etc., who is an atheist or agnostic if they have other social skills.
"...but with my new, expensive master’s degree in theology..." and thus, the key to being published in the NYT. They do love fallen theological types; it seems to play neatly into their religious antagonism.
"I was waiting to see if this was from David French."
Tom T. has the winner for the thread!
It worked out.
"She asked if we could stay married as platonic partners.... Our non-monogamy had given me the chance to explore what I wanted. And what I wanted was a monogamous relationship with Tamara"
Only thing is I'm exhausted just by imagining all the struggles caused by various confusions in our society as depicted in the NYT.
Polyamory.
Dude, it's called fucking around.
I can't really judge until I see what wifey looks like.
OK, I'll bite. I read it. It doesn't have the classic hallmarks of a Russian disinformation op. It definitely has all of the classic hallmarks of a Penthouse disinformation op. Every word in that article is fiction, including "and" and "the".
C'mon - they met in Bible school? That's a tell.
She put notches on her belt effortlessly, he struggled and couldn't get aroused.
He starts to get insaneley jealous, then finds arousal and love.
Now they are all besties and rotate Christmas dinners.
I'm sure their now 10 year old is not put off by having 3 moms, a dad, and lots of "uncles". That must be in season 2.
None of this has to do with God. It’s about a wife that wants sex with women. It happened to one of my best friends. Wife left him for a woman. Left the woman for another guy and had a daughter with him. Left him and went back to the girlfriend. Life is complex sometimes. My buddy got married again. Got divorced and had a lot of girlfriends then met the love of his life. They have tow daughters, four or five grandkids and are still married 30 years later.
My guess is she's already unfaithful and wants his agreement.
re: Althouse's question about what to do when one spouse says no more sex.
My ex-wife announced she wasn't interested in sex anymore. Six months later the divorce was finalized. I left.
I've been married to another woman for 10 years. My ex-wife has a boyfriend. So, that was a solution.
Can exploring polyamory both break you and make you?
Maybe, maybe not, but what it absolutely will break is civilization. If there's a minority embracing it, not really existential threat-wise, because they benefit from everyone else providing the foundational bedrock from which everything else flows.
I can't remember which part of philosophy 101 it was (utilitarianism, maybe?), but it was one of the ways to judge whether or not something is "right". Take the action and expand it out so EVERYONE does it and that will give you your answer. If EVERYONE embraced the lifestyle described, we would be well and truly fucked as a culture.
Just here to acknowledge that the comment count reached 69.
Scott M seems to be referencing the Kantian Imperative. Kant, of course, was a German philosopher, and thereby a poor guide to life.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন