Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?

[Kathryn]

Which merely emphasizes the point that it is the milk they want, not the cow.

Let's take a look at that old saying.

"Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?"

I see a lot of truth to that statement. Just because a person wants milk, doesn't mean that's all they're after when they buy the cow. If they want milk only, there's plenty to be had for a very cheap cost - sometimes even free.

But the cow is an investment with much greater return.

As my brother says, "it all boils down to economics."

 

[Me Myself]

Let's take a look at that old saying.

"Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?"

I see a lot of truth to that statement. Just because a person wants milk, doesn't mean that's all they're after when they buy the cow. If they want milk only, there's plenty to be had for a very cheap cost - sometimes even free.

But the cow is an investment with much greater return.

As my brother says, "it all boils down to economics."

The idea of having the cow is not that everyone loves cows, their beatiful smiles and the joy they bring to children (unless you are hindu ) The idea is that it is an investment so you don´t have to pay for future milk, and maybe/probably would be able to sell milk to you neighbours.

SO it´s still a saying that revolves around cow´s only value in their milk! :cover:

 

[Kathryn]

Please.

Well, there IS value in milk - and also value in safeguarding the purity of your milk supply too.

 

[Songbird]

So...what if someone's lactose intolerant? Or allergic to cow dander?!

 

[Kathryn]

So...what if someone's lactose intolerant? Or allergic to cow dander?!

That's their own business. I'm only talking about my own milk and cow preferences.

 

[Me Myself]

Should I leave my wife if she becomes a mad cow?

I mean, SEX

<_< >_>

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I learned the saying a bit differently: "why buy the milk if you can have sex with the cow for free?"

So...what if someone's lactose intolerant? Or allergic to cow dander?!

There are pills for both problems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please.

Well, there IS value in milk - and also value in safeguarding the purity of your milk supply too.

I always took the saying to be all about sex. It's saying to women that a man won't have incentive to marry her if she gives away the source of her value. The implication is that the source of women's value is sex.

If someone really wants the experience of having a cow, then no amount of milk would satisfy this need. It's only the people who are interested in getting as much milk as possible for as little bother as possible, and not getting a cow for its own sake, who the saying applies to.

 

[Sunstone]

I always took the saying to be all about sex. It's saying to women that a man won't have incentive to marry her if she gives away the source of her value. The implication is that the source of women's value is sex.

If someone really wants the experience of having a cow, then no amount of milk would satisfy this need. It's only the people who are interested in getting as much milk as possible for as little bother as possible, and not getting a cow for its own sake, who the saying applies to.

That's my understanding of the saying, too.

 

[Kathryn]

I always took the saying to be all about sex. It's saying to women that a man won't have incentive to marry her if she gives away the source of her value. The implication is that the source of women's value is sex.

The saying IS about sex - which is one, and only one, aspect of relationships.

Sex is one thing of value that individuals bring to an intimate relationship. It's not the only thing of value, but it does have value.

I think of this saying when I sit across the table from a good friend of mine, who has been hoping for the past two years that her boyfriend, who she lives with, will ask her to marry him. Every major holiday and birthday, she's crestfallen, as the proposal never materializes.

Why should he marry her? It's obvious that they have different goals and hopes and expectations. And meanwhile he is enjoying all the comforts of a wife, lover, and mother of his child (not her child), without committing to anything long term.

Personally, I think she's made things WAY too easy for him.

 

[Me Myself]

The saying IS about sex - which is one, and only one, aspect of relationships.

Sex is one thing of value that individuals bring to an intimate relationship. It's not the only thing of value, but it does have value.

I think of this saying when I sit across the table from a good friend of mine, who has been hoping for the past two years that her boyfriend, who she lives with, will ask her to marry him. Every major holiday and birthday, she's crestfallen, as the proposal never materializes.

Why should he marry her? It's obvious that they have different goals and hopes and expectations. And meanwhile he is enjoying all the comforts of a wife, lover, and mother of his child (not her child), without committing to anything long term.

Personally, I think she's made things WAY too easy for him.

And why would she want to marry him?

She is also getting everything he gets. If she gives sex she recives sex, she is being a mother as I understand, she is her companion.

I am not trying to argue that she doesn´t "need" to get married, I argue that the ceremony has an intrinsic value for a lot of people. In this case your friend is the example.

Just saying. I think if sex is needed for marriage to happen then the guy is not really interested in marriage anyways.

 

[Kathryn]

And why would she want to marry him?

Good question - I personally wouldn't have him. But I also never would have moved in with him.

She is also getting everything he gets. If she gives sex she recives sex, she is being a mother as I understand, she is her companion.

She's a baby sitter for his child. She doesn't want to have a baby unless they are married, so she's putting off her own fulfillment in some hope that this guy will suddenly, after about four years, realize that he wants to marry her.

 

[9Westy9]

Are there any reasonable moral grounds to oppose open relationships and marriages? If so what are those reasonable moral grounds?

If you're both okay with it and the people it effects are okay with it, then it's fine in my eyes. I personally wouldn't want to be involved in one however.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The saying IS about sex - which is one, and only one, aspect of relationships.

Sex is one thing of value that individuals bring to an intimate relationship. It's not the only thing of value, but it does have value.

Right... and for those sorts of people, the saying has an obvious answer:

Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Because you like the cow.

And I think that's it for me and this analogy, because I really don't like using analogies involving "buying" and "cows" to refer to marriage and women.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, as one who's not too worried about political correctness, I don't mind bandying about an old phrase that has a lot of truth to it.

It doesn't fit all situations, but it certainly does fit some.

 

[Sunstone]

Right... and for those sorts of people, the saying has an obvious answer:

Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Because you like the cow.

And I think that's it for me and this analogy, because I really don't like using analogies involving "buying" and "cows" to refer to marriage and women.

Yeah, but saying you like the cow would be the ******** answer. The question is clearly intended to suggest the only value of the cow is the milk it produces. That is, the question must have originated with some fool village idiot who thinks women are for sex and only for sex.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

This is for Panda: You are right. I am sorry for being mean.

 

[Falvlun]

My fiance and I are both intrigued by the idea of an open relationship, but we have, of yet, been unable to come to a satisfactory arrangement.

That's probably the most important part for these relationships (well, any relationship for that matter): You gotta communicate, be honest, and know what is expected of each other. If the boundaries aren't clear, that just leaves someone open to being hurt, and ultimately damaging the relationship.

 

[Penumbra]

Nope. As long as all involved are informed, consenting adults and that everything done is in uncoerced, mutual agreement.

^that.

 

[Barcode]

I disagree....

Sex can be emotional and if couples are engaged in intercourse with different couples, at some point people will develop feelings despite the consensual aspect of the union. I believe once feelings gets involved, that is where it becomes complicated. Also everyone keeps talking about consent but what about sexually transmitted diseases? Oh, I guess when you consent to sex you consent to being given an STD?