Monogamy versus Polygamy
Replies
-
Hmm, this conversation didn't end up being as fun as I expected. Somehow I envisioned us all deciding to go live in a commune and have sex with each other...
*sigh* Oh well, it was a nice thought. Off to sing!! :flowerforyou:0 -
Looking forward to getting to know you better too! I always like reading what you write!
Aww :blushing:I could NEVER be a sister wife though.. LOL.
Um, yeah. I could never be one either. All those women competing over one man?? A misogynist's dream...
I think I like hunter gatherer society better :drinker:
Although, P never did answer my question about what to do with the old people.... :grumble:
Ok, I'm off to sing for real now!!0 -
We all have genetic "programming" to have a predisposition for many things. It doesn't mean that we necessarily have to obey that command, just realize that we have that program in there, and if it is our option, to countermand it.
My own personal experience has taught me to countermand it. I've only been strictly monogamous with the one partner I've been with. Yes, I have general fantasies because of said programming, but that's all they've been...fantasies. When I was with my ex, I didn't really think of anyone else. Granted, I had a lot of my own underlying issues at the time that did well to help me prevent even the slightest temptation (I lived my social life on the internet...and I don't really regret it...).0 -
Anyone ever see the movie Queen where the young wife asks the mom (or MIL?) why she's not upset that her husband sleeps with the slaves. The answer was something to the effect that she preferred it that way because if he didn't sleep with THEM, then *SHE* would have to meet his needs.0
-
I think that some people are meant to be in relationship and some people are meant to roam and have different relationships. The problem is when those two people meet and are attracted...the long-termer gets mad that the short-termer won't commit and the short-termer doesn't understand why the other wants committment.
I am absolutely 100% a long-termer. That is why I could never have a one-night stand or the like, and want to be in a serious relationship before I engage in sex. I know I would be devastated if I had sex with a guy and he didn't want to see me after that.0 -
Call it what you want, P: brainwashing, indoctrination, whatever... but I am a one man woman. I don't want multiple partners. I'm actually embarrassed about how many I've had. My heart's desire? To meet that one man who "gets" me, the one man with whom I can share my ups and downs and with whom I have those little secrets and inside jokes, the man to whom I can devote all this love and attention which I have stored up inside of me, the man who will laugh with me, explore with me... I want that special connection. With ONE man. I've tried dating just for fun, dating different people. That's just not for me. I want ONE man. That's it. That's all. I'd rather be single and alone than to be with a myriad of men... I understand what you're saying that we'd all be close and share a connection...blah blah blah... but, personally, I like the idea of being with one person. Yes, for the rest of my life. I promise. It will be everything but boring...0
-
I am waaaaay too possessive to share any man of mine. Hands way the fock off my man. lol
I wouldn't have survived long in the communal sex pot.
^^^^ THIS :bigsmile:0 -
I agree with that... to some extent. I mean ideally, on the paper, I'm totally with you. But in reality, are people really able to pull this off?To meet that one man who "gets" me, the one man with whom I can share my ups and downs and with whom I have those little secrets and inside jokes, the man to whom I can devote all this love and attention which I have stored up inside of me, the man who will laugh with me, explore with me...
I want that special connection.
It is probably quite a challenge, in this day and age, with all the external stimuli and possibilities, to maintain a healthy monogamous relationship.
It takes a lot of work, and the downs can make it seem a lot easier to just go and find someone else. It's easy to say we're going to be faithful, now, when we're not truly facing the situation, the boredom, the complexity and sometimes displeasure of a long term relationship.
The "we are polygamists" by nature, if that was the case, surely open relationships would more of a norm.
If you say that monogamy is only a requirement of our modern societies, it could also be argued that polygamy was only a requirement of the prehistorical societies, or hunter gather societies.
Which subsequently doesn't make it more a genetic trait or a primal need than monogamy... Just an adaptation to the needs of your society. And so polygamy/monogamy is mainly a societal thing then, rather than a genetic program.
On a side note, why is one of the partner pretty much always sad when the other one cheats on them? Clearly one of the two partners is satisfied with the relationship and wouldn't want it otherwise.
Note: The two guys in the videos seem to confuse a lot of notions...0 -
Call it what you want, P: brainwashing, indoctrination, whatever... but I am a one man woman. I don't want multiple partners. I'm actually embarrassed about how many I've had. My heart's desire? To meet that one man who "gets" me, the one man with whom I can share my ups and downs and with whom I have those little secrets and inside jokes, the man to whom I can devote all this love and attention which I have stored up inside of me, the man who will laugh with me, explore with me... I want that special connection. With ONE man. I've tried dating just for fun, dating different people. That's just not for me. I want ONE man. That's it. That's all. I'd rather be single and alone than to be with a myriad of men... I understand what you're saying that we'd all be close and share a connection...blah blah blah... but, personally, I like the idea of being with one person. Yes, for the rest of my life. I promise. It will be everything but boring...
Aw. I kind of feel like an idiot right now. That was beautiful -- I really, really hope that you get your heart's desire very soon. I'm pretty sure you deserve it :flowerforyou:
In all seriousness (can you tell that I haven't been serious up to this point?), it is an interesting point. I'm going to speak entirely from a woman's perspective, because, well, isn't it obvious? I think a major problem that women have when it comes to dating and relationships is that we have been programmed for millennia to believe that we are supposed to "belong" to a man -- take care of his house, meet his needs, have his children, etc. Over the centuries this has taken many forms, from actually being legally considered a man's possession to believing that a woman's highest achievement was to live at home and raise children.
I think it's pretty obvious that these are all ways to keep women subjugated, and unfortunately, a major way to do this is to make a woman feel ashamed of her sexuality. There has always been a dual standard -- young men went and slept with lower class women and everyone giggled and said "boys will be boys!" A young woman went and slept with a man and her future was over unless the man could be convinced to marry her. Even then, she would still be shamed and everyone would be talking about the "scandal" years later.
Bear with me -- I realize this seems to be off topic.
What P was saying (I believe) is that we aren't meant to be this way. There is a reason we are programmed to enjoy sex -- it is purely evolutionary for the purpose of procreation, thereby furthering the species. We really have no reason to be ashamed of our sexuality, and fortunately (for me, anyway!) we've developed enough so that sexual encounters don't necessarily need to end in children. As far as I'm concerned, this just leaves room for the enjoyment!
I do have to add a bit of a disclaimer: I'm arguing this way because I've pretty much wasted the past year pining over a man and trying to turn myself into the kind of woman I thought a pastor wanted (lol, surprised?), only to find that when he actually wasn't interested, I was more relieved than anything. Deep, abiding commitments are great, I'm sure, but I've found that they always end up with me sacrificing everything and feeling like the loser in the situation because he's still not entirely happy with me. I'm definitely over that idea. For now at least, I'm happy with my friendships and occasional casual flings while I focus on my operatic pursuits...
Edit: Sorry, didn't realize this was so long!! :noway:0 -
Note: The two guys in the videos seem to confuse a lot of notions...
Damn! I never did watch the video :laugh:0 -
What P was saying (I believe) is that we aren't meant to be this way. There is a reason we are programmed to enjoy sex -- it is purely evolutionary for the purpose of procreation, thereby furthering the species. We really have no reason to be ashamed of our sexuality, and fortunately (for me, anyway!) we've developed enough so that sexual encounters don't necessarily need to end in children. As far as I'm concerned, this just leaves room for the enjoyment!
I'm not totally sure what I was trying to say. Other than it's likely that we spent 200,000 years of our existence as a species living in small, hunter gatherer groups where sexual partners were shared. However, for a variety of reasons for the past 10,000 years or so, or about 5% of our existence as a species, we've lived in a completely different way, where we're expected to conform to a one person model. And we're clearly failing at that terribly, if you look at the numbers. 50% of marriages end in divorce, and many, many more involve cheating.
Why this is the case is what fascinates me. There is a lot of pop psychology presented here as to why relationships fail. Perhaps it's less about "communication" or whatever (even though that is extremely important), and more about the disconnect between the model we all pursue (one woman, one man, living happily ever after), and what we've been programmed for.
Having said that, 10,000 years is an incredibly long time. We have no memories of our ancestors lives on the African savannah, for example. No memories of our great exodus into Europe, throughout Asia, across what is now Russia into Alaska and on towards North and South America. Nor of the great change that occurred when we decided to settle and grow our own crops. So what does it mean to be "programmed" by this previous lifestyle? We're so used to saying this is "mine," that's "yours," that the concept of communal sharing is completely foreign. Which is why we can't comprehend - intellectually - the idea of sharing sexual partners any longer. Although some "primitive" tribes today in remote parts of the world still do this.
In short, what is left over in our genes that makes us act completely irrationally, based on modern morality? And is this the fundamental reason why we just can't make one man, one woman, work on a grand scale? And when we do make it work, it clearly involves a tremendous amount of self control. Basically suppressing our baser instincts.
--P0 -
I just ordered Sex at Dawn on my Kindle, mentioned during the discussion. Looking forward to reading it.
--P
I didn't watch the video because my speakers suck, and I haven’t read Sex at Dawn, but I had a conversation with someone about it a year or so ago, and I remember feeling like – hey, that’s interesting- love thinking about the development of mating rituals and everything, and I’d like to suspend moral judgment and be down with polyamory, but I’m just totally not. Polyamory is probably deeply hard wired, but my distain for it is probably not all learned- I’d argue that that’s instinct , too- thanks to evolution which maybe cancels out any buried multi-love drive.
My impression of that book was that it had a pro-polyamory agenda (so wasn’t just a neutral anthropological account) and seemed to me like an easy way for men to excuse a wandering eye (or penis). So, it’s like women can’t ever win. According to 10k yrs of practice, you’re a shameful slut if you have sex with too many people, but if polyamory is the skeleton that we should still cling to- then it ends up shaming women who just want monogamy and a faithful partner by making them seem unrealistic (either because of conditioning or evolution- who knows). Madonna or *kitten*.
I just have to wonder how quick we are to shed vestiges of ancient mating practices. I agree that 200k yrs of doing something a certain way would probably be like brain stem level instinct, but certain types of evolution can happen pretty effing fast, and when behaviors change drastically I don’t see why neural circuitry wouldn’t keep up and change as fast as something like melanin in skin. It’s all adaptation to stimulus- right?0 -
Polyamory is probably deeply hard wired, but my distain for it is probably not all learned- I’d argue that that’s instinct , too- thanks to evolution which maybe cancels out any buried multi-love drive.
Correct, it's really polyamory, not polygamy, we're discussing here.My impression of that book was that it had a pro-polyamory agenda (so wasn’t just a neutral anthropological account) and seemed to me like an easy way for men to excuse a wandering eye (or penis). So, it’s like women can’t ever win. According to 10k yrs of practice, you’re a shameful slut if you have sex with too many people, but if polyamory is the skeleton that we should still cling to- then it ends up shaming women who just want monogamy and a faithful partner by making them seem unrealistic (either because of conditioning or evolution- who knows). Madonna or *kitten*.
Well, you correctly identify the stigma put on women due to all of this, but before that, you take a cheap shot at men.
If we were talking about a small percentage of men who cheat, then I'd grant you your thesis: all of this polyamory talk is about men excusing our wandering penises (heh - sounds like a punk band). So, according to this logic, bad men want to cheat, and this is a convenient excuse. Most men don't want to cheat, so there is nothing to explain away.
But the reality is the exact opposite. The man who isn't fantasizing about the new secretary is actually the outlier. And truth be told, women are attracted more to these "bad boys." They just want them to be exclusive once they form a sexual bond with them.
However, it might help how we view our relationships if we were a bit more understanding of the fact that it's just not natural for one man and one woman to form an exclusive, long-term bond. I'm not saying it's not desirable, or not possible! It's just not natural.
Then we could all forget about the feigned shock when the latest celebrity four-star general gets caught screwing his younger, pretty biographer. Or have to talk about supposed "psychological problems" when a popular golfer is revealed as a "sex addict," whatever that means...
Perhaps women have adapted better than men. Women are more ready for the one man, exclusive, model that we've adopted as our ideal. Although clearly many women cheat, too. Many women are bored to death with their husbands, or long term partners. But overall, they have adapted better to modern sexual mores.
Men, clearly, are really struggling with this. At least the ones who have options. Who, coincidentally, perhaps even tragically, are the ones that women desire the most.
--P0 -
Polyamory is probably deeply hard wired, but my distain for it is probably not all learned- I’d argue that that’s instinct , too- thanks to evolution which maybe cancels out any buried multi-love drive.
Correct, it's really polyamory, not polygamy, we're discussing here.My impression of that book was that it had a pro-polyamory agenda (so wasn’t just a neutral anthropological account) and seemed to me like an easy way for men to excuse a wandering eye (or penis). So, it’s like women can’t ever win. According to 10k yrs of practice, you’re a shameful slut if you have sex with too many people, but if polyamory is the skeleton that we should still cling to- then it ends up shaming women who just want monogamy and a faithful partner by making them seem unrealistic (either because of conditioning or evolution- who knows). Madonna or *kitten*.
Well, you correctly identify the stigma put on women due to all of this, but before that, you take a cheap shot at men.
If we were talking about a small percentage of men who cheat, then I'd grant you your thesis: all of this polyamory talk is about men excusing our wandering penises (heh - sounds like a punk band). So, according to this logic, bad men want to cheat, and this is a convenient excuse. Most men don't want to cheat, so there is nothing to explain away.
But the reality is the exact opposite. The man who isn't fantasizing about the new secretary is actually the outlier. And truth be told, women are attracted more to these "bad boys." They just want them to be exclusive once they form a sexual bond with them.
However, it might help how we view our relationships if we were a bit more understanding of the fact that it's just not natural for one man and one woman to form an exclusive, long-term bond. I'm not saying it's not desirable, or not possible! It's just not natural.
Then we could all forget about the feigned shock when the latest celebrity four-star general gets caught screwing his younger, pretty biographer. Or have to talk about supposed "psychological problems" when a popular golfer is revealed as a "sex addict," whatever that means...
Perhaps women have adapted better than men. Women are more ready for the one man, exclusive, model that we've adopted as our ideal. Although clearly many women cheat, too. Many women are bored to death with their husbands, or long term partners. But overall, they have adapted better to modern sexual mores.
Men, clearly, are really struggling with this. At least the ones who have options. Who, coincidentally, perhaps even tragically, are the ones that women desire the most.
--P
Totally cheap shot. Sorries men. But, I'm just so not into the premise of "back to basics-let's all be communal and explore screwing everybody because that's natural" because it still keeps women at a disadvantage. So now that the ladies have managed to reconcile and adapt to all of the bull**** subjugation they've been confined to, but men are really not hacking it- let's revisit and make an argument for revising the rules. Not that this thread is promoting that, but I think that Sex at Dawn might. I'd be interested in a report once you read it.
But, I question this as a statement of fact:
"However, it might help how we view our relationships if we were a bit more understanding of the fact that it's just not natural for one man and one woman to form an exclusive, long-term bond. I'm not saying it's not desirable, or not possible! It's just not natural. "
Because at this point I'd say it's very close to, if not completely natural for half of the world's population-women (because while women do cheat, I suspect it's often rooted in some kind of emotional retaliation vs. an overwhelming instinctual drive). On the other hand, it's arguable that it is completely unnatural if the other half struggles and effs it all up-thus making the whole thing a non-working unit. But it's all process, right? Even if there is crazy overwhelming evidence that monogamy is unnatural and we could intellectualize that, it wouldn't change our trajectory unless the make up of family units changed drastically.0 -
Even if there is crazy overwhelming evidence that monogamy is unnatural and we could intellectualize that, it wouldn't change our trajectory unless the make up of family units changed drastically.
I'm not sure if it's this discussion, or perhaps the lasering comment from the other thread, but I'm kinda getting turned on now...
--P0 -
Even if there is crazy overwhelming evidence that monogamy is unnatural and we could intellectualize that, it wouldn't change our trajectory unless the make up of family units changed drastically.
I'm not sure if it's this discussion, or perhaps the lasering comment from the other thread, but I'm kinda getting turned on now...
--P
Ha! Calm down- also posted earlier about being hippy and flat chested : )0 -
gotta come back to this when I get more time :smokin:0
-
I am curious then...
If this is supposed to be our natural state then why is it when there is a complete break down of what has been the nuclear family those areas do not revert to an idyllic communal sub society but instead turn to poverty with predatory/irresponsible males not giving a damn about children they sire by numerous women?
On edit why is it also still in 2012 that areas untouched by modern or western civilization slavery still exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_modern_Africa0 -
I wonder if the problem that we face is really the (in my opinion) absurd over-sexualisation of (particularly Anglophone) society. The common insistence that men and women can't be solely platonic with each other forces us to aspire to find all things - all aspects of intimacy - in one 'perfect' partner, rather than allowing ourselves to experience differing levels and types of intimacy with a range of people. In essence, by insisting that all male/female interaction has a sexual root, even if very deeply buried, we have closed off, or severely limited, at least, the possibility of genuine intellectual and emotional intimacy with members of the opposite gender with whom we don't share a physical, sexual intimacy.
I concur that physical monogamy may be anthropologically problematic, though it does exist naturally in some of our closest 'neighbours' in the animal kingdom - I'm not sure any absolute conclusion can be drawn on either side. Total emotional and intellectual (especially) monogamy is, I strongly believe, fundamentally impossible. I think we have created a rod for our own backs in the idea that one partner should be able to be the primary provider for all our needs - physical, emotional and intellectual. I'm sure there's no collated data, but I'd be fascinated to know how many divorces citing 'boredom' are about physical/sexual tedium, and how many about emotional or intellectual disenchantment, and then, about all three, or a combination of two of these factors.
I read an article a few months ago which suggested that the divorce rate in France was rising almost in parallel with the decline of the traditional cinq a sept arrangement by which the French traditionally saw their lovers - not necessarily physical, but also intellectual or emotional (I love that the French have always distinguished between these factors), and often relationships of very long standing - with the complicit understanding of wife or husband. Not that it proves anything, because there are inevitably other factors to consider as well, but I find it interesting that there appears to be some correlation between these factors. Perhaps a suggestion that marriages in which the wellbeing (all aspects) of both parties is not solely/primarily reliant on one other person are more inclined to be successful? An interesting thought, in any case.0 -
Polygamy could/can ONLY work in a small commune. It would never work in mass populations because there are too many risks - STDs, financial loss, lack of status, dilution of genes, emotional carnage, plus the ownership probs stated in vid................etc
Also, I'm yet to believe that we spent 200,000 years procreating within the same small commune because everyone would be related and it's a fact that incestual genes are weak and produce many birth defects........cue the banjo players! Hmmm! Perhaps that's why the species died out? But still, it would happen in a lot less time.......
I dont think the failure of relationships has anything to do with the need to spread one's seed. It has to do with the human failings of greed and power!! Naturally, I think men and woman are creatures of habit, comfort and security. We love, we nurture, we bond, we survive. There is no person I know that wants survive without the security of ONE OTHER!! We dont want 10 others, we want ONE!! We dont have the emotional or financial resources to look after more than one person.
The desire to *kitten* a million people may be there, but the practicality of it, is not!0 -
I am curious then...
If this is supposed to be our natural state then why is it when there is a complete break down of what has been the nuclear family those areas do not revert to an idyllic communal sub society but instead turn to poverty with predatory/irresponsible males not giving a damn about children they sire by numerous women?
On edit why is it also still in 2012 that areas untouched by modern or western civilization slavery still exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_modern_Africa
Amen, Carl!0 -
I've been thinking about this damn thread all day...
Jules, I really like what you were saying. I am wondering if the reason women are the ones to get screwed over is because we are so deeply programmed to do what men want us to do that we almost subjugate ourselves?
Castadiva, can I just say that I always love your thought process? Seriously, so often I will read a post of yours and catch myself thinking about it the next day. I think you may have caught on to something. It seems that almost any relationship (including friendships) in our culture are supposed to be based in sex, which can really be a detriment to finding meaningful relationships. You were really quite eloquent, so I won't attempt to rehash what you said...
Anna, I almost died at the banjo players comment!
Also, I'm slightly embarrassed -- I'm afraid I may have come off as though I think it's ok to just sleep with everyone I meet. I really don't think this -- for one, I enjoy my current disease-free state and plan to keep it, and for another, I am very careful about choosing my partners. I thought it was a fun conversation, not actually meant for real life. Not that this matters to any of you, but I still felt that I should say it :flowerforyou:0 -
Jules, I really like what you were saying. I am wondering if the reason women are the ones to get screwed over is because we are so deeply programmed to do what men want us to do that we almost subjugate ourselves?
Not to put too fine a point on it but whenever suggested that ladies take a more proactive role in relationship building they have here by a great majority flatly refused and have said they want to feel demure.
Probably it won`t be popular to point that out but it is so.
Not an excuse to treat anyone like crap but if one wants a different role they need to strive for it.0 -
Jules, I really like what you were saying. I am wondering if the reason women are the ones to get screwed over is because we are so deeply programmed to do what men want us to do that we almost subjugate ourselves?
Not to put too fine a point on it but whenever suggested that ladies take a more proactive role in relationship building they have here by a great majority flatly refused and have said they want to feel demure.
Probably it won`t be popular to point that out but it is so.
Not an excuse to treat anyone like crap but if one wants a different role they need to strive for it.
I get that -- I'm actually not the type to sit back and be demure in a relationship though, so you're probably talking to the wrong person about this.
0 -
Jules, I really like what you were saying. I am wondering if the reason women are the ones to get screwed over is because we are so deeply programmed to do what men want us to do that we almost subjugate ourselves?
Not to put too fine a point on it but whenever suggested that ladies take a more proactive role in relationship building they have here by a great majority flatly refused and have said they want to feel demure.
Probably it won`t be popular to point that out but it is so.
Not an excuse to treat anyone like crap but if one wants a different role they need to strive for it.
I get that -- I'm actually not the type to sit back and be demure in a relationship though, so you're probably talking to the wrong person about this.
So be that but the point remains...one can`t say that they are only interested in guys that are dominant and they prefer as a corollary to be passive and then at some point think that will undo itself.
It makes the same amount of sense as the suggestion that a utopian communal existence in light of all evidence of human nature is what we are programed for.0 -
Methinks there is a fine line...no more like a wide chasm between wanting to feel feminine/demure in a personal relationship and subjugated/marginalized in society, simply due to gender...0
-
Methinks there is a fine line...no more like a wide chasm between wanting to feel feminine/demure in a personal relationship and subjugated/marginalized in society, simply due to gender...
But that is not the context of the thread,sexual relations is so took it that was what was being talked about rather then a bigger picture.0 -
Polygamy could/can ONLY work in a small commune. It would never work in mass populations because there are too many risks - STDs, financial loss, lack of status, dilution of genes, emotional carnage, plus the ownership probs stated in vid................etc
I should have written polyamory, not polygamy. But your point is valid insomuch as STD risks for this type of behavior today. However, this was long before STD's. Also, there was no population explosion during this time (that came with agriculture), so no worries there.Also, I'm yet to believe that we spent 200,000 years procreating within the same small commune because everyone would be related and it's a fact that incestual genes are weak and produce many birth defects........cue the banjo players! Hmmm! Perhaps that's why the species died out? But still, it would happen in a lot less time.......
Nobody said we'd be procreating within the same gene pool. No doubt there were rules limiting contact between family members. Also, people probably broke off from the main clan from time to time. And of course there were occasional wars.I dont think the failure of relationships has anything to do with the need to spread one's seed. It has to do with the human failings of greed and power!! Naturally, I think men and woman are creatures of habit, comfort and security. We love, we nurture, we bond, we survive. There is no person I know that wants survive without the security of ONE OTHER!! We dont want 10 others, we want ONE!! We dont have the emotional or financial resources to look after more than one person.
The desire to *kitten* a million people may be there, but the practicality of it, is not!
But here's the crux of the matter. You wrote:
1 - There is no person I know that wants survive without the security of ONE OTHER!!
2 - The desire to *kitten* a million people may be there, but...
This is the contradiction that lies at the failure of almost all relationships. Not saying it can't be overcome, obviously. Some people manage to create long-term, healthy, happy relationships. Just saying that this contradiction is there, perhaps it is most prevalent within males (who struggle the most with it, although clearly women do, too), and should be appreciated as such.
--P0 -
I wonder if the problem that we face is really the (in my opinion) absurd over-sexualisation of (particularly Anglophone) society. The common insistence that men and women can't be solely platonic with each other forces us to aspire to find all things - all aspects of intimacy - in one 'perfect' partner, rather than allowing ourselves to experience differing levels and types of intimacy with a range of people. In essence, by insisting that all male/female interaction has a sexual root, even if very deeply buried, we have closed off, or severely limited, at least, the possibility of genuine intellectual and emotional intimacy with members of the opposite gender with whom we don't share a physical, sexual intimacy.
I think this is a profound insight, and I've been thinking about this quite a bit since you posted. I do think this over-sexualization (sorry, American spelling) is a result of the denial of our sexual selves. It's a form of repression. Look at the massive porn industry. Look at how we advertise beer or power tools. Look at the glee on reporters' faces when they have an actual sex "scandal" to report ("We're shocked, shocked this powerful man could cheat on his wife!"), etc., etc.I concur that physical monogamy may be anthropologically problematic, though it does exist naturally in some of our closest 'neighbours' in the animal kingdom - I'm not sure any absolute conclusion can be drawn on either side.
Where does monogamy exist within our closest neighbors (sorry, American spelling) in the animal kingdom? One example, please! Only one!Total emotional and intellectual (especially) monogamy is, I strongly believe, fundamentally impossible. I think we have created a rod for our own backs in the idea that one partner should be able to be the primary provider for all our needs - physical, emotional and intellectual. I'm sure there's no collated data, but I'd be fascinated to know how many divorces citing 'boredom' are about physical/sexual tedium, and how many about emotional or intellectual disenchantment, and then, about all three, or a combination of two of these factors.
Again, a very profound insight. And recall, the hunter gatherer society was probably not just about sharing sexual partners, but about developing a true community. They had to get along, after all, as they were always together. When children had many fathers (i.e., when nobody really knew, or even understood, the concept of "a" sperm fertilizing one egg), it created a stronger link within the group. When sharing was critical for survival, a completely different value system formed. Sharing does not just mean food and sex, but also time, attention, etc. In short, there almost certainly wasn't the sense that ONE partner had to provide everything. It was more a communal exercise. Or, at least it was expected that a greater number of close tribal members should provide this. We are social animals, and one partner just can't meet all of our needs - and not just for sex!I read an article a few months ago which suggested that the divorce rate in France was rising almost in parallel with the decline of the traditional cinq a sept arrangement by which the French traditionally saw their lovers - not necessarily physical, but also intellectual or emotional (I love that the French have always distinguished between these factors), and often relationships of very long standing - with the complicit understanding of wife or husband. Not that it proves anything, because there are inevitably other factors to consider as well, but I find it interesting that there appears to be some correlation between these factors. Perhaps a suggestion that marriages in which the wellbeing (all aspects) of both parties is not solely/primarily reliant on one other person are more inclined to be successful? An interesting thought, in any case.
You are correct, it proves nothing. But again, a very interesting insight. This is exactly the kind of analysis I had hoped to see from this discussion. Thanks!
--P0 -
Btw, just to clarify, I'm not trying to idealize hunter gatherer society. I'm certainly not advocating a return to those values, including polyamory. Agriculture allowed for a population explosion, which later resulted in a technological explosion, the development of science, etc. To reverse that would imply a genocide of unspeakable proportions. Only a disaster could bring this about: nuclear holocaust, meteor strike, global pandemic, etc. The genie is long gone from the bottle...
I'm only saying the root cause of our relationship issues can be traced back to our transition from polyamory to monogamy as our ideal, which probably occurred about 10,000 years ago, a minor blip within our specie's existence.
I'm also not saying that monogamy is not preferred within our new value system. Just that it's extremely difficult. And as was noted, we're not just talking about sexual monogamy. Trying to have ONE partner provide a majority of our emotional needs is a recipe for frustration and disappointment, as well.
Remember, it was a community that we had when we roamed the savanna. Look at how we try to simulate that here, on-line? MFP, Facebook, whatever.... We leave our families and settle, alone, oftentimes a long way from our roots. We form friendships, but they are fleeting, as we're soon off to another job, another town, another life. And to make up for this, we seek out ONE partner that can satisfy our sexual and emotional needs. We put so much pressure on this ONE person! How can he/she ever make up for the loss of an entire community of support?
He/she can't. And the sooner we recognize this, the better we can adjust our expectations in a way that sexual monogamy can, perhaps, work.
--P0
