- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 19,599
- Reaction score
- 11,565
- Location
- South Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
When New York socialites Quentin Esme Brown and Peter Cary Peterson got hitched in Las Vegas over the weekend in front of a small group of friends — including Tiffany Trump, who acted as the flower girl — they knew that people would make some assumptions. Either they were madly in love or drunk, right? In reality, the best friends said they were neither. They're planning to make theirs a sexless, open marriage, they explained, and this actually sounds like a pretty wise idea to relationship experts.
"He has always been my soulmate in every sense of the word and we felt mutually that Vegas was the place to finalize our commitment to partnership," Brown explained on Instagram. "Peter and I are not romantically involved — in fact we are still dating others and will continue to seek love in all forms — we are just each other's hearts and wish to begin our journey towards evolution, because the more we face reality, the more we can see that there is no right or wrong.
He's your soulmate, yet you don't want to have sex with him or anything?
I don't get it. But whatever; it's a free country. :shrug:
Yeah, I heard about this. I totally don't get the point, and don't think it's workable unless they are both asexual and will never be physically attracted anyone - ever. But it's a free country, so, whatever...
Well, it says in the article that they are still "dating others", which kinda defeats the point of them two being "soulmates" in my eyes. I mean I think my girlfriend is the closest I'm gonna get to a soulmate. It would be weird to me if we just acted like "friends" in a relationship, and then screwed around with other girls.
But yeah, it's really whatever. :shrug:
Exactly. How can some sort of jealousy not enter the picture? How can you go through life with a "soulmate" while screwing around with other people? This would make a good situation comedy. But a pretty dark one...
Self-promotion I expect. “Socialite” in this context means they make money on the back of their public image and this will give them the kind of attention that requires.1. its stupid , i dont see the point.
They could well be idiots but I don’t think it’s entirely contradictory. The desire for same-sex marriage was to make the same principles of complete commitment of two people to each other available to same-sex couples. This doesn’t seem to be able a desire for any of the emotional, social or even legal elements of marriage and it purely just for show. They could have achieved the same thing without an actual legal marriage, just a personal expression of commitment. They don’t seem to want or need any of the formal elements of an actual marriage.2. I heard this on a local radio station. Its a top 40 station out of Austin with 3 young liberal hosts. I know from listening to them for a while that they all definitely support gay marriage. When they started talking about this all 3 of them said it was wrong, it made a mockery of marriage and went against tradition. I couldnt stop laughing at the irony.
Well, it says in the article that they are still "dating others", which kinda defeats the point of them two being "soulmates" in my eyes. I mean I think my girlfriend is the closest I'm gonna get to a soulmate. It would be weird to me if we just acted like "friends" in a relationship, and then screwed around with other girls.
But yeah, it's really whatever. :shrug:
"You're my soulmate, girl. I'm gonna go screw this other girl now."
Let's be real, many marriages are just that. Particularly as you get older, there are many people not having sex in marriages. It's probably more important in the long run to have someone you actually like being around, a friend, than someone you lust over but other than sex they can be unbearable
Let's be real, many marriages are just that. Particularly as you get older, there are many people not having sex in marriages. It's probably more important in the long run to have someone you actually like being around, a friend, than someone you lust over but other than sex they can be unbearable
Not sure what this has to do with Trump but its the only article I could find about this, sorry
Tiffany Trump's friends just entered a sexless marriage, which isn't a terrible idea - AOL Lifestyle
2 things:
1. its stupid , i dont see the point.
2. I heard this on a local radio station. Its a top 40 station out of Austin with 3 young liberal hosts. I know from listening to them for a while that they all definitely support gay marriage. When they started talking about this all 3 of them said it was wrong, it made a mockery of marriage and went against tradition. I couldnt stop laughing at the irony.
He's your soulmate, yet you don't want to have sex with him or anything?
I don't get it. But whatever; it's a free country. :shrug:
1. its stupid , i dont see the point.
He's your soulmate, yet you don't want to have sex with him or anything?
I don't get it. But whatever; it's a free country. :shrug:
Yeah, I heard about this. I totally don't get the point, and don't think it's workable unless they are both asexual and will never be physically attracted anyone - ever. But it's a free country, so, whatever...
Exactly. How can some sort of jealousy not enter the picture? How can you go through life with a "soulmate" while screwing around with other people? This would make a good situation comedy. But a pretty dark one...
Simply because you do not see the point does not mean it is stupid. Of course stupid is an opinion value, so one can consider something stupid, even if they do understand it.
While sex may be part of the criteria you have for a soulmate for you, that does not mean that everyone has the same criteria.
Why wouldn't it be workable? Because it is not within your idea of what a marriage should be?
The problem here is that you are trying to view this legal marriage as the same as a so-called "traditional" one. Legal marriages have no requirements for love, sex or children. They are not the same as what people typically think of with the word marriage. That said, you can establish a stable long term household with someone, and in all reality, there is no reason why such a couple should not be able to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage as recognized by the legal system. The argument that they can get these benefits by other means than legal marriage fall just as flat as they do when applied to SSM.
I have no problem with these relationships - it doesn't matter that I don't "get it". Everyone should be free to marry who they want, for whatever reason they happen to have.
My question is whether one partner will every have sex or fall in romantic love with a 3rd party, and whether that will cause friction. I see that as inevitable, but maybe it isn't.
First I have to ask. Did you notice that post was a response to multiple post? It didn't seem like it, but I'm not positive.
I don't see it as any more inevitable as many heterosexual marriages nowadays. And in a practical sens, if you do no foresee any changes for many years, it is a good solution by establishing a stable household, which is one of the purported goals of legal marriage.
Not sure what this has to do with Trump but its the only article I could find about this, sorry
Tiffany Trump's friends just entered a sexless marriage, which isn't a terrible idea - AOL Lifestyle
2 things:
1. its stupid , i dont see the point.
2. I heard this on a local radio station. Its a top 40 station out of Austin with 3 young liberal hosts. I know from listening to them for a while that they all definitely support gay marriage. When they started talking about this all 3 of them said it was wrong, it made a mockery of marriage and went against tradition. I couldnt stop laughing at the irony.
Some truth in that. Marry someone you actually enjoy things other-than-sex with is some of the best advice any young person could hear, even though they often ignore it.
But this ^ above is still far from any ideal of marriage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?