It has been a While
I'll skip all the comeback crap and get right to the point.
I was tlaking with Ali earlier today about marriage. She was saying by the time she was ready to marry someone she would be able to forgive pretty much everything except cheating. She added an addendum that she also believed it was her obligation to keep her husband interested as well. This got me thinking, Is it her obligation to keep him interested or is it his obligation to stay interested and curb his desires. It is a question of compromise and who has to really give for it to work. Is the obligation to fill the sexual appetite of your partner or is the obligation to curb your appetite to that of your partner. It seems so unfair both ways. I mean side a is that one partner gave up all other partners for this person so the person should satisfy them,but then side b is that they don't have such a large sexual appetite and partner a madea commitment to stay true to partner b so they need to curb their appetite. Who is right and who is wrong? Am I right if I believe my partner should satisfy me or am I right if I believe my partner should be satisfied with me? I guess I always kind of sided with the side that you should be satisfied with your partner, but I have been thinking and it is a hard desire to curb. It is frustrating and unhappy trying to always keep yourself under control and yet you did make a commitment to this person and so it is your responsibility to keep those desires in check. I can also see though the idea that if I am making such sacrifices for them shouldn't they do the same for me? It is such a complex issue and I think it really gets down to the base of our gender roles in society. Heres one to kind of throw you for a loop. How would it be different if it was the female who had the bigger appetite than the male?
I thought I would just let you in on my ponderings and hopefully get you to ponder too because you know what they say, two heads are better than one.
-Jamie
I was tlaking with Ali earlier today about marriage. She was saying by the time she was ready to marry someone she would be able to forgive pretty much everything except cheating. She added an addendum that she also believed it was her obligation to keep her husband interested as well. This got me thinking, Is it her obligation to keep him interested or is it his obligation to stay interested and curb his desires. It is a question of compromise and who has to really give for it to work. Is the obligation to fill the sexual appetite of your partner or is the obligation to curb your appetite to that of your partner. It seems so unfair both ways. I mean side a is that one partner gave up all other partners for this person so the person should satisfy them,but then side b is that they don't have such a large sexual appetite and partner a madea commitment to stay true to partner b so they need to curb their appetite. Who is right and who is wrong? Am I right if I believe my partner should satisfy me or am I right if I believe my partner should be satisfied with me? I guess I always kind of sided with the side that you should be satisfied with your partner, but I have been thinking and it is a hard desire to curb. It is frustrating and unhappy trying to always keep yourself under control and yet you did make a commitment to this person and so it is your responsibility to keep those desires in check. I can also see though the idea that if I am making such sacrifices for them shouldn't they do the same for me? It is such a complex issue and I think it really gets down to the base of our gender roles in society. Heres one to kind of throw you for a loop. How would it be different if it was the female who had the bigger appetite than the male?
I thought I would just let you in on my ponderings and hopefully get you to ponder too because you know what they say, two heads are better than one.
-Jamie