From affairs to open marriage

Four posts back, you’ll find one entitled Passion Recalled Isnt Passion. In it, I touched upon some of the sexual affairs I had starting about a decade after Peggy and I were married. Peggy later corrected me on a few points. One is that she never had affairs in the sense of screwing people without my knowledge and consent. This is true, and I didn’t mean to present things otherwise; its just that there are no good words to distinguish the various types of sexual relationships that one might have with other people while married. She also corrected me about not catching any STDs, because she and I both got chlamydia. She then told me something that I didn’t know. She said the chlamydia was what caused her to have endometriosis, and was therefore the root cause of her hysterectomy. 

Peggy also told me where she thinks she got the chlamydia, and I’ll share that with you because the incident is typical of what our lives were like at the time. By now, we were maybe thirteen years into our marriage and had gone from me having affairs to us having an open relationship. Peggy only agreed to this, because I clearly wasnt going to stop having sex with other women.

In the mid-eighties, I spent much of two years visiting communes. I’d take off in my Datsun truck and drive to wherever one was that I wanted to visit, lining up two to four per trip. These trips took me to Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Hampshire. I would be gone for up to two months, and it wasn’t unusual for me to have sex with people I met along the way. I visited two communes in Tennessee. One was the 1,200 member guru-inspired outfit called The Farm (http://www.thefarmcommunity.com/) that was, and still is, I suppose, renowned for its midwifery program. The other was also rural, but only contained about ten or fifteen people who lived in their own houses, either as couples or singly. I stayed with a couple named Lynn and Bob, and the first night I was there, I couldn’t sleep for them having sex. Bob never made a squeak, but Lynn was a screamer, so there wasn’t anything for it but for me to lie awake and listen.

When I got up the next day, Bob was gone to work, and as she made my breakfast, Lynn asked how I slept. I figured she must have known, so I said I lay awake horny listening to her scream. She asked if I would like to make love to her the next night, and I said I would so long as it was just her and me. She said that, no, Bob had to be included, so I said okay, I would do it if I wasn’t expected to have sex with him. Lynn said that he was a heterosexual, so I needn’t worry. So the next night we all climbed into bed, and talked a bit, and then I started making out with Lynn. When I was through, Bob took my place, and then we talked a bit more and went to sleep. In hardly any time at all, I was ready to do it again, and so began another round of lovemaking with me going first and then Bob. This went on all night, and I enjoyed it immensely.

I never felt awkward in such situations because if there was any awkwardness to be felt, it happened when I was trying to decide whether a woman would say yes if I asked her to have sex with me (sometimes, the woman made things easy by beating me to the punch). Once the question of whether to have sex was out of the way, I felt completely comfortable, and the women I had sex with did too, because those who make love to a lot of people are never shy, at least about lovemaking.

A few months later, Peggy and I visited Lynn and Bob. Peggy and Bob spent the night together, and Lynn and I spent the night together. I think we did this for two nights. Once, during the daytime, I leaned over to give Lynn an affectionate hug, but she stiffened and looked displeased, so I didn’t try that again. Later, Bob and I were talking, and he said that their open marriage was Lynn
’s idea. This put him and Peggy in the same boat, so if they had each known how the other felt, they might have lay in bed and read instead of having sex. 

Not long after we got home, Peggy learned that she had chlamydia. I never gave any thought to where it came from because it seemed so minor. Only now, do realize that Peggy blamed it on Lynn and Bob. She also told me something else that I didn’t know. Her doctor said he was required to report her to the health department, but that he wasn’t going to do it out of respect for her privacy, Brookhaven, Mississippi, being too small a town for a person to have any confidence in keeping something like that a secret, especially when that person is a nurse.

I look back on those days with longing, my only regret being that I didn’t make love to a hundred times more women, but when Peggy looks back, all she sees is a lot of pointless sex. For me, sex was the point. It’s not that I didn’t want emotional intimacy because I very much did, but that there was usually too much going against it, things like geographical distance, jealous husbands, a lack of interest on the woman’s part, and an absence of emotional compatibility.

After we moved to Oregon, I had four relationships that were emotionally intimate and that lasted for a period of years. It was the women who ended three of the four, and I was very sad and angry for a long time after two of them ended. What I observed about having serious relationships while married is that most women fall into two categories. Those in one category wanted to have a relationship with me precisely because I was married, and they imagined that this would prevent us from becoming emotionally entangled. Those in the second category, whatever their initial motivation, eventually tried to win me away from Peggy and ended their relationship with me when they failed. In the first instance I felt used, and in the second, I felt abandoned. Clearly, being married doesn’t protect one from heartache, which is why Peggy says she’s done with open relationships, and this reminds me of something else she corrected me about. I wrote that if our friend Walt gets a divorce, I thought that Peggy would probably go back to having a sexual relationship with him, but she says she’s against it because it’s not worth the aggravation.

One of the women I had a long-term relationship with was Vicki, and it was she and Peggy and I who formed the group marriage. We talked of adding a second man, but we only lived together a few months short of two years, and by the time we separated, it was a case of good riddance. The last woman I had a long-term relationship with was Jackie, and that was in the late ‘90s. She was divorced at the time, and she ended her relationship with me when she decided to start looking for a husband. Since I regarded her as a a good friend whom I had sex with rather than someone I was in love with, I was okay with this, and so Peggy, Jackie, Jackie’s husband Kurt, and I are still friends all these many years later. Kurt was initially reluctant to meet me, but when he did, he realized that I had no feelings of jealousy and no remaining interest in having sex with Jackie, so we got along well. I think that with both lovers and friends, it’s often the intense relationships that burn-out fast and end miserably, which means that it’s better not to aim too high.


The painting is by Costantino Cedini, and I chose it because it captures how good sex used to feel. I'm  sorry those days are gone, but I wouldn't want them back either because for every moment of ecstasy, there were a lot more of sadness.

53 comments:

Paula Kaye said...

I didn't leave a comment on your other post about your open marriage concept because....well let's just say "just because."

I feel very sad after reading this. I had a very monogamous relationship with my soul-mate who luckily was also my husband. I could NOT have shared him with anyone and I never felt the need to have shared myself with another. I just feel sad for you. That's all!

kylie said...

i'm sorry about the negative consequences of all of that, for Peggy and you.

i do think that monogamy is promoted as the gold standard and a lot of people (my younger self included) feel an obligation to conform to something they dont really understand or agree with so i think it is a very freeing thing to come to monogamy as a genuine choice rather than a societal imposition

Sue in Italia/In the Land Of Cancer said...

I read your post about your past philandering. In it, you estimated that there are much more philandering women then men. I disagree and so do statistics. On the average, men have twice as many partners as women do though some point out that is a mathematical impossibility. Maybe both sexes lie, in opposite directions. Yes there are women who collect partners but I suspect their motivation is quite different.
But what I really want to know is what you got out of this? The thrill of the conquest? Are the vaginas all that much different?Constant validation that you are attractive?
You've outgrown this, thankfully for Peggy but how much she must have been hurt even beyond the STD.
I find many of your posts interesting and thought provoking but it seems it took a very long time for you to grow up in this respect.

Snowbrush said...

"I had a very monogamous relationship with my soul-mate who luckily was also my husband. “

You bring up a few thoughts. First, the term "soul-mate" seems to suggest—to me anyway—that we are guided by God in our selection of a mate, which causes me to ask how it is that God bestows his/her guidance upon some people but not others. Secondly, I think of your view as a romantic myth that’s rarely heard among men (for reasons I’ll get into later). I call it a myth because if you could inventory everyone in the world whom you might love as a mate, the list would run into hundreds if not thousands , but the situation is even more complicated than that because the very best person for you at one point in your life might not be the very best at another because neither you nor your partner is static either in personality or in your reaction to various life’s events. This means that, no matter who you’re with, odds are that you could love someone else just as well if not better (if not this year, then next year), so you pretty much have to believe in divine providence or extraordinary good luck to imagine that you somehow hit the mega-lottery in terms of mate selection. It’s also common among women to believe that their husband’s desire to make love to other women means that he’s disappointed in them, but the truth is that men and women simply evolved differently, by which I mean that women can best provide for the survival of their genes by having a stable relationship with one man, whereas men can best provide for the survival of theirs by spreading their seed as widely as possible. No matter what’s going on for us on the surface about such things, our actual motivations are hidden. Also, I’ve had ample opportunity to leave Peggy for various women whom I loved and was passionate about, yet I never seriously considered doing it, so, even by your definition, it could be that she’s my soul-mate. Then too, even if the term soul-mate has any validity, it’s not obvious that such a person is found rather than created through years of growth and work. Finally, I doubt that it’s true for anyone that sex doesn’t become less exciting the more you do it with any given person. No matter who I’ve made love to, the twelfth month wasn’t as thrilling as the third, and I liked that thrill so much that I wanted it to continue, so, again, it’s not obvious to me that monogamy is our natural state, because if it were, there wouldn’t be nearly so much screwing around.

"I could NOT have shared him with anyone...”

So, had he wanted to have sex with someone else, you would have divorced him? I should think that, if you really believed he was your soulmate, you might have given him the space to work through whatever he needed to work through. I think that what we have in America is people who declare someone their soulmate, dump that person when the going gets rough, and then go out looking for their “real” soulmate, ad infinitum. The truth is that marriage eventually and inevitably involves people making very different choices about very important things (Peggy and I have both done this), things that bring a lot of pain and could easily lead to a separation. Yet, she and I are still together, and still committed to staying together, after 43 years of marriage, but you don’t appear to give us credit for that because you have an idealized picture of how marriage is supposed to be.

Stephen Hayes said...

This is very interesting, especially since my sexual experiences were so much more tepid than yours, as are most people's, I imagine. I married my soul mate and have never allowed myself to be tempted sexually, but there have been a few other emotional connections.

Snowbrush said...

"i think it is a very freeing thing to come to monogamy as a genuine choice rather than a societal imposition…”

I won’t presume to speak for Peggy, but I don’t think I came to monogamy by choice so much as by changing hormones. While, I can still "get it up," and I still feel turned on by women, I no longer feel driven to take them to bed.

"In it, you estimated that there are much more philandering women then men. I disagree and so do statistics.”

I was speaking from experience and my reflections upon my experience rather than statistics, and this makes what I said anecdotal rather than scientific, which is all that I meant it to be. If you have valid studies to suggest that I am wrong, then why not reference them with a link?

"But what I really want to know is what you got out of this?”

I said as much as I know about that in my posts and in my first comment in this link.

"You've outgrown this...it seems it took a very long time for you to grow up in this respect.”

I don’t see it as a case of growing-up, and I don’t regard having an open relationship as indicative of needing validation, making conquests, etc., but of a personal choice, that might or might not be healthy just as almost any personal choice might or might not be healthy. For example, society would applaud you for pursuing an advanced degree, but this doesn’t mean that you’re not doing it simply because you’re afraid of leaving academia for the “real world.” Your assumption that non-monogamy represents something to transcend simply doesn’t resonate with me. By way of comparison, let’s say you have a yen to travel, so over a period of 20 years, you visit a lot of different places, and then decide that what you really want to do it to stay home and devote yourself to gardening. Few people would assume that the change was due to your finally having grown-up. Likewise, upon what do you base your assumption that monogamy is the mature choice and non-monagamy the childish choice? Certainly, non-monogamy can be a tough row to hoe, but this doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad row to hoe, and I have observed that there are significant gender differences in how people think of it. Certainly, Lynn was the one in her marriage who promoted it, but my experience is that women, in general, are more likely than men to view it in a negative light despite the fact that so very many of them engage in it, whereas men tend to see it in a nuanced way whether or not it’s a choice they make for themselves. Many non-monogamous people rightly point out that monogamy is a lie in American culture, that what we actually have is marriage, followed by affairs, followed by divorce, followed by marriage, followed by affairs, followed by divorce, and so on. Perhaps, if people had the freedom to experiment, they might stay together longer. I don’t know if this is true, but given that our current divorce rate is so high that marriage is becoming a dinosaur here, it’s an interesting speculation.

Paula Kaye said...

A soulmate is a person with whom one has a feeling of deep or natural affinity.[1] This may involve similarity, love, romance, friendship, intimacy, sexuality, sexual activity, spirituality, or compatibility and trust.[2]

A definition of soulmate and what it means to me. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with God and the Bible. And I never said that it did. I happen to believe in monogamy. I can only end this by saying that I am thankful that you and Peggy found each other. In answer to your question, yes, if my husband had wanted to have sex with another person
AND acted on it, then I would have divorced him. But that did not happen because we had the same values and we grew together through all of the 36 years we were together. I do NOT have an idealized picture of marriage in way...I was married twice! I cannot see any reason to give you credit for 43 years of being married since it doesn't seem to me that it was a "marriage" to begin with. Or maybe you should explain exactly what marriage means to you.

Elephant's Child said...

Not for me. For complicated reasons which probably include a fear of comparison.
I am interested to hear about your experiences though and unsurprised that there is pain as well as pleasure.

Chartreuse said...

You've written a very thought-provoking piece here in your usual honest and straight-talking style. And if I’m equally honest in reply I have to say that my first reaction to your post was one of smug self-satisfaction and a sense of superiority –that I enjoyed what seems to me to have been a much superior experience to you in my 35-year monogamous relationship with my late husband – yes, I would even call him my ‘soul-mate’.

I have to concede that we had had 12 (for me) and 17 (for him) years of less satisfying previous marriages before building what we both agreed was a much richer and more satisfying relationship than either of us had hitherto enjoyed. I had never had a sexual relationship with anyone other than my first husband when he walked out (I don’t know whether or not my first husband had been faithful; I thought so then but I now wonder – in any case, no one else was involved in our break-up). But I realised that marriage was definitely over (in the end it was my choice, as he wanted to get back together) when I met my second husband. We were then uncommitted lovers, but his was a friendship I wasn't prepared to give up. Even at that stage, it was a much more satisfying relationship than I had known with my first husband. In the two years between these two men I had enthusiastically made up for lost time by having a number of affairs – some casual and one tempestuous. It was while in the middle of that last affair that I met my second husband. I found out early that he had had numerous affairs during his first marriage and had never conceived of living in a monogamous relationship. But he was a rock for me through this difficult period. We became great friends as well as lovers – ‘falling in love’, I guess describes it.

What spurred us both to think of living a certain way was the death of his teenage son in a Sunday afternoon road accident – the fact it was a quiet Sunday afternoon and the young man was headed to meet his godmother at the cinema always seemed to us like a most terrible irony! Anyway, on the night after the funeral, no doubt fuelled by the day’s emotional intensity, my lover and I decided we wanted to live the rest of our lives in a manner than seemed to us to make better sense of what little time we all have on this good earth. I can’t quite explain how we reasoned it – in fact, reason didn't really come into it. We just decided there and then we wanted to build something stronger together – be true to each other, build a home and focus as much energy as we had left on nurturing this love we had miraculously found. I know it all sounds schmaltzy and romantic. But believe me, neither of us is or was what anyone would call romantic or sentimental. The decision was almost experimental for us both. So we bought a house and moved in together. Six years later, with my teenage daughter and his remaining young-adult sons in attendance, we solemnised the union by marrying. (Why we did that is a story for another time.)

No doubt it helped that my husband was 49 years old when we met – I was 34. He’d already sown enough wild oats to last a lifetime; I, just enough to realise that casual sex was not a satisfying pastime for me. Allen’s funeral a year ago was a wonderful celebration of his long and happy life. One of the eulogies that I found most moving was that of his ex-wife, who’d become part of our life initially because of their children, but later became a friend and a strong support to me in the final years of Allen’s debilitating decline. She spoke with warmth and humour about their years together and their sons. In closing, she said that she had long ago come to terms with the fact that in their 17-year marriage, Allen had really been rehearsing for what was to be his greatest role as a lover and partner.

I wouldn't have missed our 35 years of mutual devotion for anything – certainly not for short-term sexual thrills. That’s what roller coasters are for. (Sorry. I told you I was feeling smug!)

Snowbrush said...

"But what I really want to know is what you got out of this?”

I gave a little more thought to your question. Please understand that the events of which I have written happened a long time ago, so I don’t trust my memory as much as I wish I could. That said, I recall thinking at the time that our society is structured so that people are really quite separate except for one's parents, children, and marriage partners. Parents eventually die, and children grow up, get married, move away, and otherwise become distant. This leaves one with friends and a mate, with the mate being in one’s inner circle, and the friends’ being very far out in a second circle. What I wanted was to have more than one person in my inner circle, and part of my interest in sex with other people was due to the mistaken opinion that sex facilitated intimacy, and, of course, it doesn’t, which is why most of us go through more lovers than friends. This wish to be really close to more people was what got me interested in group marriage. Something else that I thought of as I wrote this response is in my response below, but I’ll paste it here so you won’t have to look for it: “...people who hold an unrealistic expectation of what marriage can offer tend to marry multiple times, their thought being that if only they could find the right partner (their soulmate, as it were), everything would go well. One of the things that an open relationship did for me was to disabuse me of any such notion. The only relationships that are not work are the ones in which very little is wanted, it being a lot easier to live as housemates than as partners."

Snowbrush said...



"Doesn't have a damn thing to do with God and the Bible.”

You so rarely curse that I take it to be significant that you just did… I never meant to suggest that “God and the Bible” were responsible, because as far I know (and I think I know a good bit), the concept of soulmate is alien to Judaism and Christianity (if not to all religions, the goal of religion being to put God first and everyone else a distant second), and you, of course, are a Christian. What I meant to say was that the word soulmate is most often used by people who believe in spiritual guidance; it most often refers to the one and only person in the whole world who is best suited to be that person's partner; and that I don’t see your views as being exclusively tied to Christianity. I therefore assumed that the word had a spiritual dimension for you. Was I wrong?

"I do NOT have an idealized picture of marriage in way...I was married twice!”

As a general principal, I consider it likely that people who hold an unrealistic expectation of what marriage can offer tend to marry multiple times, their thought being that if only they could find the right partner (their soulmate, as it were), everything would go well. One of the things that an open relationship did for me was to disabuse me of any such notion. The only relationships that are not work are the ones in which very little is wanted, it being a lot easier to live as housemates than as partners.

"I cannot see any reason to give you credit for 43 years of being married since it doesn't seem to me that it was a 'marriage' to begin with. Or maybe you should explain exactly what marriage means to you.”

I think you’re being unkind rather than interested. Even when I suspect this of someone, I try to answer questions with the assumption that they’re based upon at least some desire to understand, but when someone displays the kind of strong disapproval that I feel from you, this becomes harder because I suspect that no matter what I say, my interrogator is going to be of the same hostile opinion still. If I am wrong in this instance, let me know, and I’ll try to answer your question.

"No doubt it helped that my husband was 49 years old when we met – I was 34…”

Let’s see…Jackie and I broke up 16 years ago, so I would have been 49, and I haven’t looked to have an affair since then, so maybe there’s something to what you say. By the way, Paula Kaye, who commented a couple of times in this thread, just lost her husband in August.

Paula Kaye said...

I am truly interested in knowing what your definition of marriage is. To me it is a union between one man and one woman. And there isn't room in a marriage for others. I have never understood, nor probably will I ever understand why men (or women) who want multiple sex partners bother with marriage. But then my 'idea' of a sexual relationship has always been centered on being with just one man and either being married to that man or in a long-term committed relationship. If you sensed hostility in my response to you the first time you might have been right. But it really isn't up to me to judge you. I am sorry if I came across that way. And as for cursing, believe me I do my share of it. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I don't curse. I just don't take God's name in vain. Very often!

So not trying to be unkind, but really am trying to understand, why you would want to stay married to one woman and yet bed as many as you could. If I sound hostile it is because marriage is truly something I hold to be sacred! Sorry

Linda said...

I think that "soulmate" refers to someone that , among other things, shares your ideologies.

I have tried to comment, but never can. So, let's see before I write too much.

Joseph Pulikotil said...

Hello greetings.

This is a wonderful post and I felt like reading Sidney Sheldon's novel.

Best wishes

Charles Gramlich said...

This is as alien to me as if we were indeed members of separate sspecies

BBC said...

I avoided 'affairs' with married women, they just seem to complex and can ruin marriages.

Snowbrush said...

"I am truly interested in knowing what your definition of marriage is. To me it is a union between one man and one woman.”

The definition changes. 20 years ago, few people thought that two men or two women could constitute a marriage, and now they can in 36 of the American states, and the likelihood is that, by June, gay marriage will be valid in all 50. In my own life, it also changes. I started out—at age 22--intending to be monogamous, and almost immediately felt as if I were bound and shackled, not by love or commitment but by a definition of marriage that didn’t work for me. At it’s bottom, my definition does and always has included love and commitment, but I’ve not felt for decades that marriage had to be between only two people, whatever their gender mixture. Then comes the issue of whether it even need include sex, and I would say no. I’ve also been told that a valid marriage must include children; well, I would say no to that too. No matter what requirements we impose, there are always going to be people who love one another deeply, want to be together in a marriage, but don’t meet those requirements, so I think it is good that society has come to loosen the requirements. The most obvious example is gay people. When you have two people who have stood by one another through “sickness and health” for decades, how can it be said that they don’t deserve to be married, yet two silly 18-year-olds, or someone who embarking on her eighth heterosexual marriage does?

"I have never understood, nor probably will I ever understand why men (or women) who want multiple sex partners bother with marriage.”

Because marriage represents family and commitment. It’s a place to come home to. It’s someone who will be there for you—and you for them—no matter what, as you were with your husband during his long illness. I knew a man whose wife was so phobic of hospitals that she wouldn’t go to him when he was sick. Is that marriage? I wouldn’t call it marriage, so where does marriage start, and end? I can’t even imagine a definition that would clarify the matter for all people in all places and at all times. All I know from my own marriage is that when two people who are in a marriage change, either the marriage changes with them, or the marriage dies.

"my 'idea' of a sexual relationship has always been centered on being with just one man and either being married to that man or in a long-term committed relationship.”

You and Peggy would deny marriage to gay people because it doesn’t fit with your definition of what marriage should be, so the question arises of the extent to which we can ethically impose our definition on others. Ultimately, it is society as a whole that decides what constitutes legal marriage. Its decisions might not be fair—as was formerly the case with gay marriage—but they are binding. For example, when the Minnesota Zoo offered a family membership rate, Vicki and Peggy and I couldn’t take advantage of it because we weren’t considered a family. Peggy went back to her maiden name so that people wouldn’t assume that she and I were a married couple, and Vicki was our housemate, but that legal definition still remained, and it set us apart from Vicki, it and our long history together.

"If I sound hostile it is because marriage is truly something I hold to be sacred!”

I understand that, and I even concur, yet our definitions aren’t the same. If Peggy had felt as you do, we would have divorced long ago, so would that have been preferable to weathering all that we’ve been through and still being committed and, at this point, even monogamous?

Snowbrush said...

"I think that "soulmate" refers to someone that , among other things, shares your ideologies.”

What ideologies, and what happens when they change? If I were to use the word, soulmate would mean permanence, so in that sense, Peggy and I are soulmates. But as Paula uses it, and as you use it, it means what you feel for a person at the present moment, so if that person has an affair or his ideologies change (in other words if he disappoints you), then he’s no longer your soulmate, so you’re left to look for a new soulmate. As I see it, this reduces the meaning of the word to the state of “being in love.”

"This is a wonderful post…”

Thank you, Joseph.

"This is as alien to me as if we were indeed members of separate species”

Which means that I fit right in with much of what you read.

"I avoided 'affairs' with married women, they just seem to complex and can ruin marriages.”

I’m not clear whether you were married or not, but I suppose you were, or you probably wouldn’t be using the word affair. Peggy’s only serious relationship with another man took place with my best friend, and I supported it. Unfortunately, this best friend and I have had arguments from time to time that kept us estranged for a few years (we’ve been friends since 1986), and one of them occurred while he and Peggy were together. This certainly put a chill in the air, and it’s the kind of thing that has led to her saying no to non-monogamy. As I see it, there’s a universe-wide complexity difference between an affair that only means sex, and an affair that means being in love.

BBC said...

Yes, I was married a few times but they didn't stick for one reason or an other. And I had sex with others between and after them.

Actually, some of the best sex I ever had was with an aunt after she was past her child bearing years. She sure had a nice pussy. :-)

Helen said...

Another candid, enlightening post from you! I enjoy reading them, enjoy reading the reactions!

For me, there has been an ebb and flow to loving, living, falling in love .. out of love. I have had relationships (affairs if you will) with men much younger, men much older. Though not during my marriage. A marriage that began when we were 18 and 19 ~~ so young, too young. It died because we did little to sustain it, nurture it. Both heading in different directions. All these years later I regret we let it slip away. I still love him, I always will .. he was my first love, the father of my children. I am thankful he found a woman worthy of him and that today he is content.

I doubt there will be another great love for me, there is just not enough time ~~~

Snowbrush said...

"She sure had a nice pussy. :-)”

I try to do two things . One is the write about subjects that are controversial at times and sexual at times, but without offending people by use of what I would consider unnecessarily graphic words. Although I use profanity at times, including the “f” word, I never do so casually, and so, my friend, I would simply ask the same of you.

"Another candid, enlightening post from you! I enjoy reading them, enjoy reading the reactions!”

What I meant to do with this post was to report thoughts, emotions, and experiences without defense or justification. Then, the comments started coming, and I took offense at a couple of them, and I feel badly about that because I want people to feel safe in expressing disagreement.

"A marriage that began when we were 18 and 19 ~~ so young, too young.”

Peggy was 20, and I was 22. We both agree that we were too young, yet what might have happened if we had waited…

"It died because we did little to sustain it, nurture it. Both heading in different directions.”

We have never stopped caring, and never lost our commitment to one another.

"I doubt there will be another great love for me, there is just not enough time…”

I don’t see that as being obviously true. I mean, people in their 90s still get married sometimes. I always felt sure that if Peggy died, I would marry again. Now, at nearly 66 (on March 1), I really don’t know. My hesitancy is that, after 43 years of marriage, how could I NOT spend my next marriage referring back to my first marriage.

Paula Kaye said...

Needless to add here, but I will anyway, that MY belief is still that marriage is between one man and one woman. What gay people have is a union. In my mind. And I don't care if they do. I don't recognize gay as anything more than a sexual preference. Sorry! I have no problems with it being recognized in all 50 states if that is what the majority want. I don't think that is true. I think that is what is being widely accepted because in the long run it doesn't affect most of us one way or another. IN MY EYES (And that is all that matters) it still won't be considered a marriage. I agree with you that marriage is about commitment and love. But I do not understand how you can say that you were committed to Peggy and yet desire to sleep with other women. It more sounds to me like you were committed to sex. And that is not marriage. (In my eyes) This is the first time in all of my 63 years that I have ever heard that a valid marriage has to include children. My children are NOT the children of my husband. He had no biological children of his own. And yet we were married. All of my brothers and one sister never had any children and I don't think any of them consider themselves in a invalid marriage. No where in the definition of marriage have I found anything that even mentions children or families. I disagree with you in the part where you believe that society needs to loosen their requirements. In my opinion part of what is wrong with the world today is that we have become far too loose. I can guarantee you that if my husband had pursued multiple sex partners in his lifetime I would NOT have been there for him during his long illness. Simply because by pursuing those multiple sex partners I would never have felt he was committed to the marriage 100% Yes, Richard and I both changed over the years. And we accepted those changes in each other. But we never waivered in what we both believed to be love or commitment. None of my "un-childed" brothers or sister have ever been denied a family membership because there were no children. I find the Minnesota Zoo to be wrong in that nature; however I do believe that I would not have considered Vicki to be part of your family but as 'the other woman'.And families of that nature are not widely accepted anywhere that I know of. I have never taken the name of my second husband (the one who just died). I have always maintained my first husband's name because that is the same name my kids have. And I was still just as legally married to him as I was to my first husband. But my first husband was in no way ever my soul-mate! I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this topic as well. And since you also used me as an example to answer what another person considered her soul-mate let me correct you on that matter. Richard disappointed me many times over the 36 years we were together. Never once did I not consider him my soul mate to the very end. It is obvious to me that you are wanting to turn around my definition of soul mate: which is Richard and I had feelings of deep affinity for each other in love, romance, friendship, intimacy, sexuality, spirituality compatibility and TRUST. So don't put words in my mouth. And thank you for giving me your view on what marriage is to YOU.

CreekHiker / HollysFolly said...

You are a fascinating man Snow! And Peggy is a fascinating woman!

Snowbrush said...

"I don't recognize gay as anything more than a sexual preference.”

I have never met a heterosexual who believed that he or she could choose to be a homosexual, yet I have met heterosexuals who believed that homosexuals could make the reverse choice. I’ve also never known a single homosexual who regarded it as a choice. Most of the homosexuals I’ve known were horrified to realize that they were attracted to people of the same gender, and they spent years trying to change their orientation in order to avoid discrimination and violence. Then, when they did come out, they were often rejected by family and friends and sometimes fired from their jobs, so given all this along the American Pyschological Association’s denial that it’s a choice, why do you maintain that it is?

"This is the first time in all of my 63 years that I have ever heard that a valid marriage has to include children.”

I was told this by a couple of Mormon missionaries, and, because Peggy and I never tried to have children, she, especially, was often told that the purpose of marriage was reproduction implying that, if you don’t want to have children, your marriage is at least less worthy than the marriage of people who do.

"My children are NOT the children of my husband.”

Yes, I know, and I also know that they’re teenagers, yet you wrote in your second comment in this stream: “...we grew together through all of the 36 years we were together,” and you repeated it in this comment: "Richard disappointed me many times over the 36 years we were together.” How could you and Richard have been “together" for 36 years, yet you have teenage children by another man?

"I disagree with you in the part where you believe that society needs to loosen their requirements.”

Institutions that remain static eventually die. An ever increasing number of people now choose to live together with being married because, aside from a few legal benefits, marriage simply seems pointless to them.

Paula Kaye said...

Sorry you didn't know but the teenage children that I am raising belong to my oldest son. He is a drug addict and we took custody of his kids so that hopefully they can have a decent chance at a good life. We gave him a good life and at age 28 he decided to give illegal drugs precedents over his kids.
I never once said that my marriage remained static. It did not. And It never died either. Just the husband did. Maybe Mormons believe that having children is the reason for marriage. Some of them also believe in multiple wives. I don't happen to agree. And yes, I will disagree with the American Psychological Association (on more than one thing I might add) that homosexuality is anything more than a choice. But then it is my right to believe this. Being a homosexual is a sexual choice and then a lifestyle choice. I have know a few heterosexuals in recent years who decided to become lesbians. And they will be the first to tell you that they were heterosexual first. I still say we just need to agree to disagree. How about it?

PhilipH said...

Certainly entertaining. Sex sells, as copywriters know. It is stronger than the Atlantic cable and has pulled monarchs from their throne.

You don't pussy-foot around Snowy, or at least you didn't ;-)

Chartreuse said...

In the few cases I've known where friends have freely admitted they have an 'open marriage', it's been my observation (based on what the partners have let slip in conversation) that one partner has been the main instigator and the other went along with the idea for various reasons of their own. But whether or not that's always the case, it remains a problem here that in this discussion we are hearing from only one partner in every case. The discussion is still interesting but it's somewhat one-sided for this reason.

I also want to agree with Paula about one thing (in fact, I think I would agree with Paul about most things - except maybe her belief in God and her idea that the expression 'sexual preference' means that a person really 'chooses' which sex they prefer; I think the only choice they have is whether or not to act in accordance with their preference, or ignore it). But I do strongly agree with Paula that caring for a partner through a long illness leading to death may not always be easy, but how much more difficult it must be without a history of mutual belonging and devotion to each other's body. I know that thought gave me a strength that people around me thought was herculean, but which to me seemed perfectly natural. Washing my frail husband's body every morning, hugging him at bedtime, even wiping his bum when that became necessary - these were our main intimacies in the last years of his life. But they probably meant more to me than random coupling just for the sake of it.

Finally, I have to admit to being shocked by reading this: "I always felt sure that if Peggy died, I would marry again". So am I a romantic after all? I don't think so. It's just that even a year after Allen died, I can't begin to imagine starting again, knowing how much better marriage gets with time and knowing I am not likely to have enough time to attain that with anyone else. Not because I believe in the exclusivity of 'soul-mateship'. Quite the opposite. I'm confident I'd have built a good marriage with someone else if I hadn't met Allen - at least I hope I'd have found a different 'soul-mate'. Because the kind of partnership we built may begin with sexual or other forms of attraction, but eventually it has to be constructed. I just don't see how a new relationship could ever provide anything like the same satisfaction that a long-term marriage can. But if I'm proven wrong in this, I'll be the first to celebrate.

Snowbrush said...

"Being a homosexual is a sexual choice and then a lifestyle choice….it is my right to believe this.”

Legally, you can believe absolutely anything you please. Legally you can believe that a dog invented the light bulb, or that leprechauns live under toadstools. Rationally, you have no right to believe anything you please. Rationally, you must have logic and evidence to support your beliefs. Ethically, you have no right to believe anything you please. Ethically, you must combine logic, evidence, and compassion, (people who are religious would add authority) because, in many instances, this one for example, your opinion might have a profound effect on the welfare of other human beings if you are called upon to vote.

"I still say we just need to agree to disagree. How about it?”

Okay. I never for a moment imagine that I will change anyone’s mind about anything.

"You don't pussy-foot around Snowy, or at least you didn't ;-)”

Thank you.

Snowbrush said...

"'open marriage', it's been my observation...that one partner has been the main instigator and the other went along with the idea for various reasons of their own.”

Based upon my limited observation, I would agree that this is usually the case, yet it would make sense that there are couples in which both want it equally, and I would be curious about how the outcome varies. You might remember a book entitled “Open Marriage” that created quite a stir in the late ‘70s, I think it was. That book influenced me and a lot of other people who weren’t content with monogamy but didn’t want to sneak around. Then, I came upon a group that supported egalitarian group marriage. They were based in Eugene, Oregon, so that was one of the reasons we came here.

“...it remains a problem here that in this discussion we are hearing from only one...The discussion is still interesting but it's somewhat one-sided for this reason.”

She has gotten some better, but Peggy has always been so adverse to writing that she used to ask me to dictate postcards. “How do I say, ‘We’re having a great time, and wish you were?’” is a strange thing to be asked, but she used to ask it, and only this week did she speculate how that might have come to be. She said that when she was a little girl, she would get her big sister to tell her what to write, and she just never got out of the habit. As to this issue, I would be happy for Peggy to write about it and post it the blog, but, alas, this isn’t likely. She does read every post, and, I think, every comment, so maybe you’ll inspire her, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. I can but say that she entered into the open marriage and group marriage with ambivalence as opposed to being dragged like a dog on a leash. One marriage counselor speculated that Peggy chose me for her mate to insure that she would never have a dull life, and for many years, this was true. Now, our lives are tame to the point of tedium. I have my plants, my reading, and my blog, and Peggy has a clothing button collection that she has been creating, studying, and designing displays for, for three decades. We also have our cat, old movies and old TV shows, our home, and camping in the summer. My life is not a bad life, but it’s not a terribly interesting life either except for what goes on within.

“I think the only choice they have is whether or not to act in accordance with their preference, or ignore it.”

So do heterosexuals, but when something becomes so difficult, one must wonder whether it really is a choice. Aside from being confined to a desert island, I don’t think I had a choice about not being monogamous. Just look at the endless stream of powerful men who have come to ruin because they screwed around, and you’ll surely suspect that there was something stronger in their “choice” to have sex with other people than in, for example, their choice about where to go on vacation. The difference is that sex is compelling. I think the scandals of the Catholic Church also tie into this. Sex denied becomes sex perverted.

BBC said...

Due to my many travels and experiences I can assure you that there are two different types of gays. And then of course there is the fence jumpers.

Paula Kaye said...

Legally, rationally, and ethically...I have the right and the choice to believe whatever I want to believe. The exact reason that I disagree with you on homosexuality is because my beliefs are based on my Christian beliefs. Of which you don't believe in at all. And I would never try to change your mind because I can tell that your mindset is too strong. Just as mine is. I have no problem with that. I really doubt that my opinion will have a profound effect on any other human being. My opinion is such a small one in such a big, big world. However there are many, many who feel the same way that I do. Maybe there will be hope for this world yet.( I can almost hear you thinking that I must want the world to be the way I want the world to be) Don't we all? I will never accept homosexuality as normal. But I sure wouldn't set about to tell another human how to live their life. I don't invite anyone else into my bedroom and I don't want to be in theirs. I am just saying, that as I see it, the only difference in a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is how they perform the sexual act. And why do we need to know that! Can't couple just be couples. My profound resentment of homosexuality is their need to continual 'shove it down our throats.' No pun intended.

BBC said...

"The exact reason that I disagree with you on homosexuality is because my beliefs are based on my Christian beliefs."

As a card carrying minister, more to the point, as a spiritualist and not a christian I've discovered that I can't have sex with a christian. They just drive me nuts, well, we drive each other nuts. :-)

Snowbrush said...

“The exact reason that I disagree with you on homosexuality is because my beliefs are based on my Christian beliefs.”

Are you saying that homosexuals should be killed (“Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”? Probably not, I suppose, but why not, if I may ask. What I really don’t understand about Christians is why they hold so firmly to some parts of the Hebrew Bible but not others.

"I would never try to change your mind because I can tell that your mindset is too strong.

Well, it’s not like I think I know the mind of God. What I mean iss that I’m always open to change a change of mind based upon new logic or evidence, whereas to one who knows the mind of God, human logic and evidence are irrelevant.

Paula Kaye said...

As a card carrying minister, more to the point, as a spiritualist and not a christian I've discovered that I can't have sex with a christian. They just drive me nuts, well, we drive each other nuts. :-)

Good thing I wasn't offering to have sex with you....Nor would I!

Paula Kaye said...

Snow you have your BELIEFS...I have mine. I don't think I know the mind of God either! Never did I say that. It is so interesting to me how you take peoples words and try to twist them to suit your need for writing. You don't need to reply. This will be my last comment on this post. But I am sure that is what you want. You strike me as a guy that likes to have the last word. Have a great day

Rob-bear said...

"Infants have less fun in infancy than adults do in adultery." ~ Anon.

BBC said...

"Well, it’s not like I think I know the mind of God."

I am god, god is a fucking idiot. :-)

Snowbrush said...

"there are two different types of gays. And then of course there is the fence jumpers.”

I have two gay followers that I know of, but neither has made an appearance. One of the two seldom does, and I offended the other with my recent political posts. So, all I can do is to say that the gay men I’ve known were strongly gay, although some of them married women in order attempt to deny their gayness to themselves, or to simply fit into society, but they weren’t true fence jumpers. Among women, some are clearly gay, and others are as you describe, but I think they eventually settle in one way or the other.

"Legally, rationally, and ethically...I have the right and the choice to believe whatever I want to believe.”

I’ll grant that you seem ethical enough, but I don’t see the basis for your claim to rationality in regard to this subject because your sole reason is the acceptance of religious authority.

"I can't have sex with a christian.”

So, you come to my blog, and you start breaking women’s hearts, do you?

"Good thing I wasn't offering to have sex with you [BBC]....Nor would I!”

There you go, BBC, case in point. Paula was so obviously attracted to you, and now you’ve gone and broken her heart.

"Snow you have your BELIEFS...I have mine.”

This is something that atheists sometimes hear from theists who can’t support their theism but argue that, since atheists can’t prove that there is no God, the two "beliefs" are equal. It is true that all any of us have is belief, but as to beliefs being equal, think of it this way. If I say that it’s going to snow in Kansas on August 3, and you say it’s going to be hot and dry in Kansas on August 3, your belief will be supported by the weather forecast and climate data, whereas my belief will be fanciful regardless of how firmly I think it is true.

"You strike me as a guy that likes to have the last word.”

Which is clearly something that you know nothing about…Okay, I’ll make you a deal, if you’ll respond one last time, I’ll promise not to say anything.

"'Infants have less fun in infancy than adults do in adultery." ~ Anon.”

God, but I envy you your grounding in theology! I love it! I should take it and put it into the signature part of my emails.

"I am god, god is a fucking idiot. :-)”

Okay…as I understand you, you believe that we are all God. When I was boy, I believed that I was God, my reason being that I couldn’t imagine anything existing apart from my presence, and this meant that I had to create it when I passed by, and that it disappeared when I was gone. My belief had a flaw that didn’t occur to me at the time, namely that, if I really were God, I should be able to control what I created. For instance, I should have been able to eliminate being sick all winter each year, and I should have been able to rid the earth of bullies.

BBC said...

I don't think I broke Paula's heart, you are just funning with us. :-)

Most likely I offended her. I figured out years that if I was going to speak my mind on the internut that I would be offending some folks.

And I decided to be okay with that.

All Consuming said...

A fascinating post with very interesting comments, though many of them I would have anticipated as an open marriage is often deemed to be one where something is missing and the love isn't as strong. I disagree with that premise, and that is partly to do with your previous explanations as to why things panned out the way they did. If anything I;d say you must have an incredibly strong bond of love to a. still be together, and b. wish to be with each other ultimately over and above running of with someone else. I suspect there are many people who feel as you did Snow but would never admit it to be so and therefore do spend their whole lives cheating ona partner they love who will in the end come to despise them. Peggy does not despise you, she loves you, and with a love of enormous strength. She could have brought up the cause for the hysterectomy again and again over the years, and I think she would have if she had wished to hurt you. She accepted you, which is quite rare in a relationship where one partner feels differently about sex and sexual partners. You already know you're a lucky man and I have no doubt that if we were to use the words 'soul-mate' then you are hers.
I enjoy the sex posts more than the God posts. *laughs a lot*.

Snowbrush said...

"I figured out years that if I was going to speak my mind on the internut that I would be offending some folks.”

I try very hard not to write honestly while causing as little offense as possible. I’m not saying I always do this especially well, but it is in my heart to do it well. Especially when I’m writing about religion, I tone down what I say because I have readers who are religious, and it would serve only only bring more alienation into the world if I were to offend them by stating my position more bluntly than necessary. I also try to maintain a respectful tone in the comment section. Again, I don't do this flawlessly myself, but it's still very important to me that we all try to avoid offending people unnecessarily.

"I enjoy the sex posts more than the God posts. *laughs a lot*.”

I’m doing them just for you, you know. The only thing I can remember Peggy seriously considering leaving me for was marijuana, and that was back in ‘70s. I didn’t even use that much; I thought it offered a gateway to enlightenment; it only cost $15 a lid; and I bought it from my brother-in-law when I bought it at all (I mooched it more often than not), but the fact remained that it was a felony in Mississippi, and Peggy worried about me being caught, and about the unlikely possibility of her being busted with me. She also felt that people should obey the law even if they don’t like a particular law. Because I never—in my entire life—have taken the law seriously when I thought the law was wrong (which shouldn’t be taken to mean that I don’t take going to jail seriously), I was incredulous that she felt so strongly. I think that the only thing that kept her from actually leaving me was that the marijuana itself was obviously so harmless. In fact, when we came to Oregon, Peggy registered to vote just so she could vote to decriminalize pot. This was in the late ‘80s, and now Oregon has voted to make it legal.

BBC said...

Pot is the least of our worries, humans have much bigger problems than that.

I've never much gotten into it but I will take a hit at times at social hour, it makes others that use it feel more comfortable around me, as if I am one of them, or a least accepting of them, something like that.

I took some to my friends in Texas, they were very happy to get, said it was some good stuff.

Linda said...

I have never, ever heard anyone refer to soulmate as someone who sought spiritual guidance.

In between years of university grad school, I got a job as one of the women in the mall who tries to get people to come in and do surveys.

There was a young man, 23, just married who was another worker who stood in the mall with us. He and I were English majors, both interested in blood, the feminine, werewolves and ancient beliefs. Did you ever understand to blood in Thoreau? We did. I was 45.

We got into trouble because we talked too much. So, we hid, one behind plants or the columns and the other out in the open. The manager of the business stalked us to see how we managed to talk to each other.

I commented to him one day that if he were the older and I the younger, we would be in much more trouble. He nodded sadly.

In moment of high energy, a mental thrill, I told him not to take it wrong, but that I thought we were soul mates. He assured me he felt the same way. And, he said he knew neither of us had feelings we should not.

As for one of us changing our focus, that would not have happened.

As for ideology, yes, people who are soul mates can change their ideology. Maybe a deep and abiding love has developed or they had children and do not desire to divorce. Maybe their ideologies change at the same time or at least in the same direction.

Maybe they divorce. That still does not change their moments when they considered each as a soul mate.

Goals in common could be how they are soul mates. If I want to live in academia and guy wants to live in the wilderness, then someone has to change goals or make it work or go their own ways.

That young man is the only person I have ever considered as my soul mate. But, there was nothing sexual, just a meeting of the minds.

Linda said...

My nurse friend after her first husband died married a pot head unbeknownst to her. She went straight to the judge who was a hs friend to ask his advice. In this state if pot is found in the home of a nurse, she loses her license. In your pot smoking time, that was probably not the case.

BBC said...

Soulmate is a tough one, like love, our most complex emotion. And so fickle.

Snowbrush said...

“I have never, ever heard anyone refer to soulmate as someone who sought spiritual guidance.”

I haven’t either. Maybe you misread something, or maybe I overlooked something, but I don’t remember this being said.

"Did you ever understand to blood in Thoreau?

“I’ve read a lot of H.D. Thoreau, but I don’t remember anything about “to blood.”

"As for ideology, yes, people who are soul mates can change their ideology.”

Yes, my understanding of the term is that it transcends such things, so it is therefore a permanent connection. Anything less than permanent would not qualify as being soul mates.

"But, there was nothing sexual, just a meeting of the minds.”

This piece I finally took this little piece of metal with the soulmate inscribed upon it to a charity store. It was given by a friend to another friend, and when the first friend died, he gave it to me, not because he felt that way about me, but because he wanted to get rid of it. This made it meaningless to me, but since it was a reminder of the friend who gave it to him, I kept it until now.

"In this state if pot is found in the home of a nurse, she loses her license.”

The thought has arisen, but Peggy wasn’t a nurse for much of my pot smoking days in Mississippi, and Oregon and Minnesota were much more liberal. Also, I never used pot regularly until I got onto Oregon’s medical marijuana program, so I never had much pot at any one time, and I rarely even had a little because once the price started soaring, I didn’t want to pay for it. As I understand it, the word pothead implies an addiction, and I’ve never known anyone who was addicted. I’ve known people who smoked a lot of pot for a lot of years, and then, one day, they quit cold turkey and didn’t show any signs of physical withdrawal. Surely they missed it, but they didn’t experience physical withdrawal. I no longer use it, and I never experienced withdrawal. My thought is that, if pot is addictive, even caffeine is more addictive. Habitual, yes, but addictive? I personally haven’t seen it.

Snowbrush said...

As far as caffeine goes, I compared it to pot because I used to quit it all the time. I would get a headache for a day or two, but that was all. I always went back to it, because I thought that, well, the stuff is legal, cheap, and surely not that bad for a person, plus I really, really like coffee. Now, whenever I hear something about coffee, it’s about how good it is for you. Just this week, I heard yet another news item about how it might help prevent Alzheimer’s, and it’s also suppose to help prevent heart attacks and melanoma.

BBC said...

"transcends"

Transcend the bullshit. :-)

I don't have an issue with pot cuz I've never been around a pot smoker that wanted to get in a fight with me.

Snowbrush said...

"'transcends'Transcend the bullshit."

I have no idea what "trancends" has reference to. I suppose that someone used it, but I don't recall who or why. I went ahead and approved your comment, but I hesitated because I don't know what it was about, and I was concerned that it might have been intended as an attack. The fact is that I don't even remember the last time that I didn't allow a comment to appear, but your use of profanity is getting to me, so I would ask you to please cut way, way back on it because it shocks rather than elucidates, and therefore creates an environment that I consider raw and disrespectful. I know that it causes me to recoil rather than to share, so I can't imagine but what it doesn't affect other people similarly.

BBC said...

It was just a thought, and not even my thought, I question that I have ever had an original thought in my life.

What is it with some people and swearing when it doesn't offend others at all?

It is just words spirit came up with in order to deal with things.

PS: Don't confuse spirit with religions.

Joseph Pulikotil said...

Hello greetings.

In this world we have Christians, Muslims,Hindus,Jews,Sikhs,Jains,Buddhists,Taoists etc.etc and of course Atheists.

At present people who believe in God far outnumber Atheists. Therefore it cannot be said that all people who believe in God are wrong.They have a reason for believing in God. Hopefully a day will come when Atheists will be more than the people who believe in God. So let us live in peace and harmony as human beings with human values. We already have enough problems in this world on account of so many views and beliefs.

Best wishes

Snowbrush said...

"I question that I have ever had an original thought in my life.”

I think this is probably true of us all.

"What is it with some people and swearing when it doesn't offend others at all?”

I curse way too much, but this is partly because, COMPARED TO WRITING, I regard verbal speech as garbage. Writing is more on the order of the sacred to me, so I make an effort to use words judiciously. It’s also true that writing has a more powerful impact on many if not most people, and so shock words that would go relatively unnoticed in speech, are like land mines in writing. If I were writing fiction about a group of sailors, a lot of profanity would be appropriate, but in non-fiction, it distracts. I personally wouldn’t even read a blog that had a curse word in every other sentence because I would assume the writer was too childish and shallow to do better.

"It is just words spirit came up with in order to deal with things.”

If I didn’t care about the impact I make on other people, I could make what I write as rude, crude, and shocking as I pleased, but I very much care about how I affect others, and it forces me to write with more depth, and this means that I can’t waste words, and curse words are nearly always wasted words.

"At present people who believe in God far outnumber Atheists. Therefore it cannot be said that all people who believe in God are wrong.They have a reason for believing in God.”

Joseph, I agree that people have a reason to believe in God, but I believe the reason is internal. In other words, it’s how we evolved. From your next statement ("Hopefully a day will come when Atheists will be more than the people who believe in God”), I take it that you would agree, and that our apparent difference really isn’t a difference.

The Tusk said...

The next women you will find attractive next to Peggy, will be one that titillates your mind. Titilatea, and titilingus.