A little more history Historiy marriage had nothing to do with love, it was a business arrangement. Of course they ignored outside affairs, they didn't care about their spouse! Of course, the mistress was often jealous of the wife... Loving the person you are married to is a new ideal as well; being faithful to the one you love is NOT new, combining it with marriage is.

Only in the case of the rich... Yes, in situations of people in money, people often tried to "Marry up". It's not the same situation for most middle to lower classes. They found husbands and wives the same way we do now. And many people cared about their spouses, even in arranged marriages. Rich women were bred and raised to be wives and mothers, it's all they knew. They had to love their husbands. I have to disagree being faithful to the one you love in new, I can think of several situations where the love was well-documented between a couple and there was still straying. It was acceptable, not a "bad" thing.

No, it was usually an arrangement even for poor people. Marrying for love is a relatively recent development. This is not to say that it *never* happened previously---just that it wasn't the norm.

History and Entertainment Tonight. Your view of history is blindly episodic. There are generations and generations of people who lived and loved outside the gossipy, Entertainment Tonight headlines of history. The commonality of affairs, adultery and mistresses existed for the elites of the time. The normal, common people lived a very difficult life and were extremely grateful to have a kind and considerate person of reliable integrity to share it with. The media throws Paris Hilton at us as if she is relevant. It discusses adultery as if it is commonplace. It isn't. It never was.

I'm a history minor... I promise I have more info than entertainment tonight. And if I don't, I want my money back. Adultery has always been commonplace, even among the middle and lower classes. Prostitutes did NOT make their living off royalty (most wouldn't touch them), working class men used them constantly. Not to mention gieshas, and multiple wive marriages.

History Trivia, Where did word HOOKERS come from

geisha were more for entertainment value, most were only sexually active with maybe 2-3 men their entire lives. it was considered an honerable thing if your husband could afford to keep a geisha as his mistress because it showed how wealthy he was...geisha would make their living by entertaining men in public places, such a tea houses..they only slept with their Dani men, me who arranged to be their protectors for a period of time..its been a while since I read up on it..but I'm pretty sure I have it right...

Actually through most of the last 100,000 years of human history, marriage, pair bonding and the functional equivalent of marriage has been common and the norm. Nature made the human mammal to be social and family-oriented and to pair bond. All cultures have had a form of marriage. Marriage has been the human norm. Adultery has been the aberration.

If any of you have subcriptions to journal sites google "Adultery in Post-War England". It's not free anywhere though, so if you don't have a subscription don't bother. I searched throughly for a free one. It basiy says adultery was increasingly looked down upon but increasingly practiced. It has good sources too, which you can also view if you have a subscription. So, yeah.

I thought it was well written...! I don't want to sound like a broken record about this, but in terms of having one's needs met by their partner, it mostly boils down to sex. In other words, do both partners have a similar sex drive whether it's high or low? If I'm not being rejected or pestered for sex, I think it's much easier to focus on the other things, like entertainment, household chores, etc. Then again, I was in a relationship with a girl who was very jealous of my time. She definitely had a "quality time" need that was way past mine. She was also the only person I've had a relationship with whose sex drive was higher than mine. To answer your question, I think that most of the time, if sex drives are more or less equal, monogamous partners can fulfill all their partner's needs.

You have a good point... men didn't believe in using their wives in the same way they would use a mistress or prostitute. It was disrespectful. They made love to their wives, they acted out their kinky side with other women. It actually makes sense in a lot of ways. Nowadays, we blame the woman who doesn't want to be wrapped in rubber.

The real question... Is it possible to make love to, and be kinky with, the same person? Many guys immediately lose respect for a woman (against their will) as soon as she lets him have anal sex with her. They just can't see her the same way afterwards.

I wouldn't have any problems with it

I am soooo glad I posted this! You make such good points. Maybe it's not possible, maybe it enables men to take advantage of their wives. I can see the correlation being very distinct. When wives were held on a pedestal, and men existed to provide for them and make them happy, and never stress them (most thought stress made getting and keeping pregnancies harder) while taking their less-than-desirable sides elsewhere, maybe it was better for everyone? Not mention keeping the working girls in buildings instead of on the streets, hoping for an unhappy or irritated hubby to drive by.

Maybe... Personally I'd rather share it all with one woman. "New pussy" is exciting (and usually a lot wetter!), but the bond is stronger when it's just one lady. Also, monogamy allows you to not use a condom, a huge plus! My most intense and hottest fantasies all revolve around women I've been with long-term, not around one night stands or strangers.

One night stands are boring

that's the man's fault, not the woman's Somebody's posted here about the whole madonna/whore syndrome. A man does his partner a disservice if he doesn't view her as a sexual being - the girl has her own fantasies and if she trusts her partner enough maybe she'll share. And no, anal sex didn't ruin a relationship for me either - as a matter of fact when my partner indulges in a little kink I just get grateful ;-) Sex is supposed to be fun, I think. Sometimes I want to make love to her and sometimes I want her to beat me with a rubber chicken.

I think its ed a Modana Complex I don't know how 'common' it is, or understand it. 'Against their will' I suppose stranger things have happened, but I think you give too much weight to really bad pscho-bable.

I hadn't heard of that before. The psychological name for it, that is. I don't pay attention to psycho babble, but I know from experience and my friends' experience, that it can happen that you lose respect for a woman once you have anal sex with her. Quick lookup on wikipedia: Madonna-whore complex means you were neglected by your mother, so you seek out women with similar traits to her, but once you find her you don't want sex from her because you think of her as your mother. That's definitely not what happened to me or my friends, because almost all of us are unattracted to women who are the same "type" as our own mothers.

It's based on Freud, most psycs say it's a bull.

Not the guys I know!

Those are good points. Also, in the past there was no means of birth control, other than abstinence, so women would be constantly pregnant. Second, life expectancy was much shorter, so a ltr was not really that long in most cases.

Well, it was more complicated. Most if not all "working girls" had venereal diseases that made them unable to get pregnant. If they did get pregnant, there were plenty of potions and things to abort it. Condoms aren't too new either, lambskin has been used for a long time. All in all, people were less fertile. Life expectancy was shorter, but not terribly. Men and women often lived to their x's, and since most women were married in their late teens it was for life, basiy.

that is so ignorant!!! the birth control means existed since ancient times. Neither condoms nor sponges, not other methods (including timing) are new inventions. SOme methods were ridiculous and unreliable, but a few not only worked, but are still used in modern times (condoms, oral contraceptives, sponges or sponge equivalents, like diaphragms) Do your research before you make statements like that

Children only NEED parenting... until they can defend themselves. We keep out children till x and longer not because we absolutely need to. Most children have the survival instinct to make it on their own by x. I think I heard elephants stay with their mom's longer than humans...and they aren't monogamous. But then again they have a gestation period of two long years.