I think this boils down (in many ways) to issues of attachment, control and possessiveness.
yes indeed, and none of the above is applicable to couples who are egoless ; - )
I don't buy the notion that one comes to a point in a serious relationship where one can no longer have female friends aside from friends that are the significant other's friends.
yes, you will have to collect your own data and come to your own conclusions. How this usually works is you begin these associations with innocent intent, but they often lead to a conversation with your wife along the lines of "I have fallen in love with someone else, I didn't mean for this to happen".
I'm sorry if that 'pull' or attraction on both a physical and emotional level is too much for you to handle, but that is certainly not the case for everyone.
Ha. Actually, as fidelity is kinda baked into the cake on this side, I would have to become a completely different person for there to be any problem or temptation in this regard, and at worst, it is a nuisance to be managed.
The problem I have when I permit any kind of association in this regard, is misinterpretation on the part of the female. When you start to step outside of the normal male ego paradigm, the behavior is so startling to your average female, they get very very interested, it messes with their decision space, and this becomes a problem.
If we are being pulled toward a particular person, for reasons beyond the physical (and even for physical reasons) there may be a significant reason for that.
usually it just your DNA working toward creating as many FWAUs as possible - and your DNA does not care about your longer term comfort, happiness or quality of consciousness as it goes about its business
We should not have to restrict ourselves as to who we will come into contact with out of fear that we may be too weak not to betray 'contracts' (of the male-female relationship variety) that we hold with others.
we must work with the world as it is, not how we wish it to be or how we think it "should" be
random contact is not the issue, the issue is the intent and choice to encourage friendships
with the opposite sex without the offsetting constraints of transparency and spousal supervision and loyalty between the females of your social circle.
If one truly cannot handle the idea of one's significant other interacting with other's of one's own gender, that is an ego-issue.
sure, if you are looking at it from the egoic level. In the early days, when I discussed this with my wife, I had to explain to her that these friendships would lead to pain and distress because of the natural propensity of the body and heart to form attachment, not only for her, but likely more for the male "friend"...as she was and remains irresistable.
How many relationships come to a point of stagnation with the current system that most of us are implementing?
there is a natural evolution through sexual and romantic obsession towards friendship...well, super-friendship, the shared life. This "super-friendship" is enabled by two things, the divorce taboo, or sufficiently low entropy to the point that you are willing to give more than you receive.
you are free to and should have many friendships with the opposite sex within the structure that evolved over thousands of years...which means doing it in the open and under the supervision of said spouse and family.
there is another issue to consider, which is the problem of the male who cannot form friendships with other males, or more precisely, cannot form friendships without a sexual element, buts that another issue.
Over half of all marriages end in divorce. What is the missing factor?
the divorce taboo and sufficiently low entropy - capacity for self-less love
another factor is limited decision space and fear - when bored or stressed in the ruleset of marriage, leaving or starting again appears to be the best solution, whereas there may be much more efficient alternatives
What changes over time in that relationship that causes people to feel the need to 'branch out' as Beau said. To me: if love is there- then no amount of "branching out" will ever tarnish that.
I guess you have to be clearer on what precise contract is in place, what behavior is being proposed, and what is the attitude of the spouse to this proposed behavior.
If you don't have a contract now, well, your decision space is not constrained and you are free to take up with whoever you like, including barnyard animals in most states.
Sure, egoic feelings on both sides with be there, as well as reasonable "feedback-signal" (not necessarily "egoic") type of emotions- but the love will remain.
well, if you are stepping out and your spouse perceives this as a violation of the contract, there may be egoic attachment (one way the word love is used), but it is not love in the entropy sense.
Maybe the urge to branch out has more to do with the underlying issue of consciousness evolution and our inherent need to explore all parts of ourselves.
more likely mental gymnastics to justify being a jerk
AUM has clearly invested in variety, has it not?
I think its more along the lines of conflicting utilities between the reptilian sensor platform, the short term pain long term gain continuum, and the higher ruleset.
The primal drive to spread the genetic wealth must compete with the practical implications of divorce law and the eternal implications of the higher ruleset.
Every person we make a connection with teaches us something about ourselves and in turn, we are able to offer that person something that the person would have never gotten anywhere else.
sure, just make sure you are honoring your contracts, not doing bait and switch, not messing up other peoples marraiges and the consequential relationships between kids and their dads, not messing up a young woman's vision of making a lifetime contract...and so on. Figure that out and you are off to the races.
The "drive" to variety, novelty and making new connections seems to have a much deeper purpose than:
1) the sexual impulse
2) the infatuation impulse
3) the impulse to build a life with someone
4) the impulse to have a wedding
5) the impulse to have children
6) the impulse to sleep around or form an extra curricular infatuation
7) the impulse to divorce
well, lets be clear about your meaning. Are we talking sleeping with married women? Are we talking about platonic relationships? Hookers?
the drive for novelty is huge...but we need to take care not to look for novelty in all the wrong places, which ends up constraining our decision space (alimony).
rather, you do something creative, like writing a book called MBTOE and spend your time travelling around the world talking to people about it. Much more real novelty than working on wife #n.
that being said, there are example of cultures and couples with unique arrangements, but you can't coerce it
it would be interesting to try to redefine marriage, and the wedding ceremony, according to MBTOE principles.
Do you not think that if we all actually realized that we are in fact One system/being/thing that our notions of exclusivity in relationships would be drastically affected?
as long as women are left for younger women, and that fear is in the culture, we got a problem.
as far as sex, I could imagine convincing a wife to permit use of prostitutes, and use of prostitutes is likely the least damaging as far as the higher ruleset, as far as avoiding collatoral damage
I don't know how you can mitigate the problem of emotional emfatuation, and avoid it leading to separation and divorce.
This isn't just about sex, infatuation, children, weddings, sex or relationship dissolution. It is about exploring consciousness - exploring the way that consciousness (OUR AWARENESS) manifests in both self and other.
figure out how to do this without pissing off your wife, and you are fine. Whatever justification you cook up, if there is a girl in tears at the end of it, you are increasing your entropy, not reducing it.
What is it within us (to view it from the flip side) that makes us so darned 'hurt' or afraid or offended or devestated when a signigicant other forms a relationship (physical, emotional or otherwise) with another individual? Is it not the tug of our ego and its need for control, predictability, the Known and possession? Why cannot we not embrace the feelings of love between ANY human beings as our own?
for dudes such as you and I who think we are very advanced ; - ), probably not an issue, the issue is thinking our spouse should be more evolved and less hung up on ego issues
Cole: is it possible that we would be 'nudged' toward this person by means of their "attractiveness"
Tom: yes, one may be preprogrammed to find specific characteristic attractive in preparation for some pre-planned meeting of someone who has those characteristics.
I'm not saying Tom does or does not "endorse" anything, because I don't really think that's the point here. But the fact is: there are forces that are pulling people together beyond the factors Randy described above...
I hope you are not interpreting Tom's words as endorsing this as being a justification for wounding your partner. Physical or mystical attraction to another female could just as easily be a test of your quality of consciousness, of your honor.
PMR is this ongoing tension between animal instincts and practical objectives, increasingly subject to the higher ruleset as we evolve, , becoming love.
The system might get some interesting data from you being a cad, but I don't think you are going to enjoy the feedback.
There is only one measure to this...which is the smile or look of contempt on your partner's face.