Utter nonsense...

Let me give a little rundown of what the likely communal tribe was truly like based on observable and documented human behaviors.

There are say 10 of us guys and to make it simple 10 lady peeps in the communal tribe.
In a perfect world all us guys go hunt and the females tend to child raising or so the stereotype would predict.

Inevitably there is an organizational hierarchy that develops,probably by a male based on a dominant personality,leadership and physical strength that can enforce his will.
Among the females similar.
This is admitted to by the suggestion of rules to prevent excessive inbreeding although without a large society that is also theoretical dreaming rather then practical reality if the numbers are slight.

Anyways as is likely the case the females drift to the dominant personality by nature and practicality but even assuming he does not become possessive of them they are not going to find all the other males in the group desirable.
So lets say I am the toady one that the females really don`t wish to copulate with but I am fortunately the best hunter.

As expected I grow weary of long days providing food and then as a reward get to watch the other males enjoy a fun evening.
Gosh,guess I will just soldier on as such...screw that,feed yourselves.

Now there is a problem to deal with.
Do I walk away...yeah another group is going to welcome me with open arms to share their food and women...not hardly.
Does the group kill me or drive me off for not picking up my share of the provider role...maybe unless it puts them at risk.
Does the leader tell the women...hey look,like it or not some of you are going to have to take one for the team here if we are going to exist.

Who knows but the bottom line is that all evidence of human nature denies any long term communal existence.
The concept of possessing territory is just as old even without borders and deeds so the suggestion that suddenly this appeared and changed moral conscience (which btw is unique to humans so thank God for that 2% difference in us) is a wishful thought not an actual reality based one.

In the end a basic monogamous society,which is not suggesting celibacy until meeting that special person,seems to have done more to civilize and advance culture then to savage it.

Going to bed.

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.

--P

Finally found something upon which I can agree with you.

I haven't read every single word of every post and admittedly didn't watch the video.

I want a monogamous relationship for whatever reason, and I believe it can happen, and it is possible. Maybe it's the culture I'm in, but I see it every day.

But I do agree with the statement that we need a community of support. Certain cultures tend to place more value on extended family ties, and many times, from what I've seen, their marriages last.

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.

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?

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.

Of course it's a challenge to maintain a healthy, happy monogamous relationship, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. And it doesn't have to be boring and laborious. Sure, it takes compromise and lots of honest, open communication. Commitment. Loyalty. Dedication. Perseverance.

But it is so worth it.

I haven't had a "perfect" relationship. Those don't exist. I don't want a perfect one. But I have LOVED. I can't even begin to explain to you the depths of the love that I have given and received. My relationship was complex and difficult and trying at times and just plain hell on earth sometimes... but sometimes it was heaven, too. He is no longer alive, but there is not a day that goes by that I don't think about him in some way. Not one.

Will I ever love like that again? I sure hope so.

And it doesn't have to be boring. There are ways to spice up the sex life, etc. And when you love someone that much, that deeply... it's more than sex anyway... it's making love... and it's beautiful... and it's hot... and it's passionate... and it's steamy... and it's being with that one person who knows every area of your body, every "hot" spot, who knows just how to tease you... it's being so comfortable that you're not afraid to try new things... it's being with that one person who touches you in such a magical way... even after nine years... who looks at you like you're the most beautiful being on earth... even when you've been in labor for 24 hours and you look like death warmed over...

yes, I'm a mush.. and I may or may not ever find love again... who knows... but I was blessed once to truly experience it...

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:

I agree that there has been a double standard, and, while I do not in any way, shape, or form consider myself a women's libber, I will say that I think women should be very proud of their sexuality. I am a very sexual being. I absolutely love sex. I think men smell that on me or something, too... lol...

But... because of the culture in which I live, because of my religious beliefs... because of how I was raised... I do have certain beliefs about the roles of men and women. Does it mean that I'm a door mat, or that I think I should be? No. Does it mean that I think I'm a slave to my man, or that I'm supposed to just do whatever the heck he says without question? No. Does it mean that I am not active in our love making? Oh, heck no.

Uh oh.. I'm getting off on a tangent and forgetting the point of my post... lol...

Suffice it to say this: I am a very sexual creature. I just happen to want to reserve that special part of me for one special man. Does that mean that I have always waited? Um no. I've experienced more than I'm willing to share publicly.

yeah... cant' finish this post... lol...

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.

I can see how a marriage could be stronger with outside support in some ways. I thanked god for my ex husband's work wife once open communication about their relationship was established, and I could see the benefits to all of us. But- if they had started having sex the benefits to me would have been that I'd have had my own place to live and lots of extra cash because I had sold all of his stuff.

Anyway, I can see that giving some of the spousal responsibilities away (occasionally) might not be a bad idea. The sex part is just too tricky, though.

I used to wonder about the french and italian people that I knew whose parents had lovers, because I knew that culturally I just couldn't grasp it. Is there an accepted reason that these "arrangements" have started to die off?

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?

I don't know? About 20 years ago I had a terrible line of thought about salaries decreases over time connecting to the first wave women's movement, and so I have a hard time letting myself think about women as whole screwing themselves given the things that women have fought for during the last century.

Personally, I definitely feel some masochism in a vague sort of collective unconscious way (although I don't really buy that construct) and it doesn't come from individual men that I know, or family patriarchism. I probably overreact to it sometimes and screw myself that way, instead of initially complying with expectations that might actually make sense to comply with. I think I've outgrown this for the most part, though.

@Kate - :blushing: Thank you for the fulsome compliments.

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.

In full agreement with this. We have become so prudish, and yet, simultaneously prurient about sex that, ironically, it now permeates every last area of our society, leading to some truly absurd counterpoints - the media/public outcry over high-profile infidelity, paired with an insatiable desire to know more and more detailed information about the 'scandal', for example. If we were truly so 'shocked', would we have any desire to know the (very) intimate details? Another counterpoint I find truly absurd (sorry, America!), is the pairing, in one country, of a massive porn industry, and abstinence-only sex education :noway: .

Our (or rather, the Victorians' carried-over) efforts at repression have been so effective that all things sexual, as the 'forbidden fruit', have become glamourised, with the consequence (I believe) that we are more conscious of sex than ever before, and spend ludicrous amounts of time and effort analysing our own/society's behaviours in this regard, insisting on finding a sexual root to all interactions (Freud would approve!), yet are also more squeamish(I can't think of the exact word I want, but you get the gist!) about sex and sexuality, at the same time . Earlier historical periods - the middle ages, the Renaissance, the Tudor era, the Regency, were infinitely more pragmatic about sex than we are in their 'media' and social environment, both in terms of reproduction/property and pleasure - acknowledging and accepting it as a normal part of everyday life - rather than attempting to hide it away, with the result that their societies were less blatantly/aggressively sexual ones - another charming irony. (Before anyone jumps in with the 'women' angle, I am thoroughly aware that women's history, in sexual terms, is problematic. Nonetheless, I stand by my observations of the general social consciousness in regard to sex in previous eras.)

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!

Gibbons are generally held to be a good primate example. Recent research does suggest that their relationship patterns are subject to infidelity and even 'divorce', much like humans, but in general, they do exhibit primarily monogamous social and sexual behaviours. I admit there aren't many examples among our close 'neighbours', but there are some...

One partner just can't meet all of our needs - and not just for sex!

Forgive me for cutting out the larger part of the quote for brevity. Hunter-gatherer community or not, I think the above is true. We tie ourselves in knots trying to find one person who is our emotional, intellectual and physical/sexual 'match', and then continue to tie ourselves into ever-more-Gordian tangles by insisting that this one person, should we have the luck to find someone we think matches all those criteria, should provide the vast majority of our support network - friend, soul-mate,mind-mate and lover - for the rest of our natural lives, and that we should avoid or shun any kind of intimacy with others of whichever gender we are attracted to, because to allow this would be a 'betrayal' of that one person. It's not often sustainable without outside support, for either the 'one' or, in the shifting nature of our lives, which you also referred to earlier, the individual (in most cases).

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!

--P

You're welcome! Thanks for posting this fascinating topic in the first place - I like subjects that make me consider, and then reconsider, exactly what I think!

I can see how a marriage could be stronger with outside support in some ways. I thanked god for my ex husband's work wife once open communication about their relationship was established, and I could see the benefits to all of us. But- if they had started having sex the benefits to me would have been that I'd have had my own place to live and lots of extra cash because I had sold all of his stuff.

Anyway, I can see that giving some of the spousal responsibilities away (occasionally) might not be a bad idea. The sex part is just too tricky, though.

I used to wonder about the french and italian people that I knew whose parents had lovers, because I knew that culturally I just couldn't grasp it. Is there an accepted reason that these "arrangements" have started to die off?

It's generally thought to be (in true Francophone fashion), the encroaching anglophone influence, both in terms of the younger generation absorbing 'American' (article's words, not mine!) relationship ideals from TV and film, and in terms of the changes to the traditional French way of life (I can't speak for the Italians, as the article was in a French newspaper, about France only, though I rather suspect they're still more 'traditional' about these things, based on my working experience there!) - as the anglophone business model takes over, so does the anglophone timetable, which doesn't leave much space in the late afternoon for a two-hour break with one's lover!

Re. the 'work wife' - I think it comes back to the conflation of all areas of intimacy in our society. We prize sexual fidelity above all else - right or wrong - but then lump intellectual and emotional intimacy into the same basket, and give them an almost equal weight, which I rather think is unwise and impracticable. You said that you were OK with, in fact, grateful for, your ex's relationship with his work wife, once you understood the parameters of their relationship, yet many people would find the sort of intellectual/emotional intimacy I infer this relationship had to be extremely threatening, and even, perhaps, a form of cheating. We've talked a lot in older threads about people's discomfort with their SO having close friends of the opposite gender, or what they would consider 'cheating', much of which comes nowhere near sexual intimacy.

To be honest, it feels odd for me to be arguing some of this, because the conclusion I seem to keep coming to, quite contradictory to all my social conditioning, upbringing and expectations, is that, if emotional, intellectual and sexual/physical intimacy are all of equal, yet separate, importance, then to say that we should be less-restrictive about our emotional and intellectual intimacy, whilst still restricting physical, or rather, sexual intimacy, seems illogical. Yet somehow, that is how I feel, and I don't understand why, really, which bothers me:laugh: .

Maybe the question that needs to be asked is why, at the deepest level, we consider sexual fidelity to be so important? Sexual infidelity would have been your 'point of no return', Jules, in relation to your ex's relationship with his colleague, and I think the same could be said of many (most?) of us here. Social conditioning certainly has a part to play, but is that the only reason? Any thoughts? Is selfishness/possessiveness an inherent human trait? We try to train it out of our children, but do we still condone this behaviour in adults in relation to romantic attachments? What, exactly, do we fear, STD issues/parental identification etc aside, when it comes to polyamory/polygamous behaviour in ourselves and others?

i did not read the entire thread, so i have zero clue where this went/ was headed.......

i, for one, support polygamy. however, i believe it would really only work when living in a group setting ( like a tribe living as a tribe and not individuals). once you "pair off" and live alone, i think it becomes a precarious balancing act......

i have zero issue being one of several women. in fact, my life and my world would be MUCH easier i had sisters wives and one man to provide for us. but, that's just me.

now, off to read the actual thread ;-)

eh, i have absolutely NOTHING to contribute to this tread from an anthropological/ educational stand point.

women were made, like men were made, to enjoy sex. it is the reason that the population continues to grow ;-) if it didn't feel good, we wouldn't want it, and then you'd be left with either no new babies, or rape.

humans are able to rationalize more. we add morals, expectations, rationalizations. i PERSONALLY don't think it had to do with HOW we used to live long long ago. i PERSONALLY think it has to do with morals, consequences, rationalization, expectations, etc.......

i remember reading something back when clinton got caught getting the BJ from monica. US was in an uproar and leaders of certain other countries didn't understand what was such a big deal. the leader of the free world got a BJ, they couldn't understand WHY we cared so much. i mean, after all, these other leaders....... they had full blown mistresses ;-)

who knows :-)

It's always interesting how humans and society has changed over thousands and thousands of years. Hell, it's changed a lot in the past 50 years!

Think we'll look back one day, maybe in the year 4000, and wonder WTF were we doing being so damn monogamous all the time?

How about in the year 4000 we wonder why on earth anyone cheated and hurt people, when monogamy is such blissful, satisfying , fulfilling and harmonious option!

It's always interesting how humans and society has changed over thousands and thousands of years. Hell, it's changed a lot in the past 50 years!

Think we'll look back one day, maybe in the year 4000, and wonder WTF were we doing being so damn monogamous all the time?

How about in the year 4000 we wonder why on earth anyone cheated and hurt people, when monogamy is such blissful, satisfying , fulfilling and harmonious option!

Wonder how many others remember this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

I just dont think the other way makes sense in other way than to fulfill a man's desire to have sex with as many women as possible? And i think that could get just as boring, given the option!! Hardly the basis for a sound society...........I actually can't think of one other societal benefit?

My roommate, the eternal charismatic player was just complaining about this last night. He's tired of having sex with new women all the time. He wants to find a girl he's compatible with and just stick with her, and he's super bummed that his (now ex-) girlfriend didn't fit the bill.

That aside, I think people keep forgetting that just because something is a natural desire does not make it "right". We have a complicated society and culture that is HUGE. That means functioning within it, might not always please everyone. So let's just put it this way - some people want monogamy, some people don't. Let people from each of those categories seek other like-minded individuals out and make their lives happy.

As far as I'm concerned if we must make marriage into a contract, it should able to be signed by any consenting adult human. So if some people want one spouse, they find a spouse that also wants that. If someone wants two husbands and three wives, then so be it. So long as everyone is open and honest - what's the big fuss?

My roommate, the eternal charismatic player was just complaining about this last night. He's tired of having sex with new women all the time. He wants to find a girl he's compatible with and just stick with her, and he's super bummed that his (now ex-) girlfriend didn't fit the bill.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. That it's not a 'natural' thing to sleep with loads of women at all. And not every man wants that. It's a personality. An upbringing. A culture. A phase. A thought that the grass is greener............I already mentioned greed and power........

That aside, I think people keep forgetting that just because something is a natural desire does not make it "right". We have a complicated society and culture that is HUGE. That means functioning within it, might not always please everyone. So let's just put it this way - some people want monogamy, some people don't. Let people from each of those categories seek other like-minded individuals out and make their lives happy.

Good solution Kits. I dont think anyone could argue with that one. And it would be interesting to see just how popular it really is amongst todays man in reality. Bearing in mind the competition, the sharing, the lack of status..............etc

My roommate, the eternal charismatic player was just complaining about this last night. He's tired of having sex with new women all the time. He wants to find a girl he's compatible with and just stick with her, and he's super bummed that his (now ex-) girlfriend didn't fit the bill.

Yeah, every guy says this to women. And perhaps some even mean it. For about six months...

Agree it can be done, and it's certainly "right," when in a committed relationship. Certainly marriage.

Just saying it's not natural, that's all.

--P

Let me give you a little real life lesson in animal behavior that I doubt you are aware of P.

I grew up on a dairy farm and bull calves are sent to market as they are not producers.
A dams milk after freshening is loaded with colostrum and not fit for consumption so often the bull calf was allowed to nurse to gain weight and utilize a product that would have to be thrown out.

When removed away (heifer calves too because the now good milk was sold) from the dam she would spend a day or two searching and bellowing for her calf.

Sad to see but part of farm life.
Know what would happen though?
Within 48 hours of losing her offspring she would forget it ever existed and would not recognize it if reintroduced back into her existence.

As it is with most if not all animals,humans being unique in having a family bond that lasts a lifetime.

Get back to me about what is natural with people after you chew on this for a while.
We are not just another species and pseudo intellectualism is just that.

****! I used to think I was intelligent until I joined this 'single peeps' group.

I was just going to say that.

Holy cow, this is soooo beyond me.