Poly ... amory and other things

[KimGordon67]

Following on from a thread that I start a while back (http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1287864), various other discussions I've had in here, and a fairly 'interesting' year in my own life, I had a sudden epiphany the other day. Contemporary western culture, and indeed most Judeo-Christian cultures and many others besides, have tended to present monogamy as the ideal - and preferably heterosexual monogamy practiced within the institution of marriage. However, while this is theoretically what we're 'meant' to be doing, evidence clearly suggests that it's not what a great deal of people actually want ... or even what they actually do ... yet they are consistently cast as morally suspect.

It suddenly struck me that instead of trying to 'fix' those who aren't (or don't want to be) monogamous, maybe we should think about changing the system so monogamy isn't the ideal.
(I suspect this only works if you take religion and banal evolutionary psychological explanations for human behaviour out of the mix.)

 

[rimmy]

From a genetic stand point we aren't meant to be monogamous. The problem is that it is so ingrained in our daily belief system that monogamy is the right way that it quite unlikely that it will ever change.

My wife and I have been in an open relationship for over ten years but we don't tell anyone we know because it's not worth the hassle of the comments.


Sad but true.

 

[KimGordon67]

From a genetic stand point we aren't meant to be monogamous. The problem is that it is so ingrained in our daily belief system that monogamy is the right way that it quite unlikely that it will ever change.

My wife and I have been in an open relationship for over ten years but we don't tell anyone we know because it's not worth the hassle of the comments.


Sad but true.

I tend to not be swayed by biological/genetic arguments in this area ... the development of human culture has pretty much been predicated on over-riding a lot of 'natural' tendencies (and if one wanted to, one could argue that the very development of that culture is a genetic trait). Also, we have a tendency to think that 'natural' (or genetic or whatever) makes something 'right' or 'normal' or 'desirable' or something, which I don't really buy either.
I'm far more interested in the social explanations for various actions and 'rules'.

I get what you mean about not telling anyone though. I've been extremely cautious about who I've told about my situation (n=2), although in part that's to protect my husband, who I know wouldn't want everyone and their dog knowing.

 

[Wildecouple]

There is a great book on this topic I would recommend called "Sex at Dawn" which offers some interesting insight / opinion around non-manogamy being more in our genes than monogamy.

 

[KimGordon67]

There is a great book on this topic I would recommend called "Sex at Dawn" which offers some interesting insight / opinion around non-manogamy being more in our genes than monogamy.

Again, there's a lot of things 'in our genes' which aren't acceptable social behaviour, and things that are entirely acceptable that aren't genetic or otherwise biological. Using these sorts of explanations can be fairly dangerous - for example, from a genetic perspective homosexuality serves no practical evolutionary purpose, and it's precisely that rationale that is used to argue against the acceptability of same-sex relations. Hence my initial comment about needing to work around the evolutionary psychology perspective.

 

[rimmy]

I tend to not be swayed by biological/genetic arguments in this area ... the development of human culture has pretty much been predicated on over-riding a lot of 'natural' tendencies (and if one wanted to, one could argue that the very development of that culture is a genetic trait). Also, we have a tendency to think that 'natural' (or genetic or whatever) makes something 'right' or 'normal' or 'desirable' or something, which I don't really buy either.
I'm far more interested in the social explanations for various actions and 'rules'.

I get what you mean about not telling anyone though. I've been extremely cautious about who I've told about my situation (n=2), although in part that's to protect my husband, who I know wouldn't want everyone and their dog knowing.

Fair enough.

As you said in your OP, most of our societal beliefs come from a Judeo-Christian background. Thankfully, every few generations there's one that rebels and have their own version of a sexual revolution. (Flappers in the 20's, free love of the 70's and the internet porn boom of today) The problem is that since religion has such a strong hold on our society, and they almost all preach monogamy, the fear of eternal punishment probably keeps most people on teh sidelines and even if they do manage to dip their toes in the water they are unlikely to share that info as witnessed by your case and mine.

It's the same as smoking weed. A fair amount of the adults I know, and I live in an upper middle class neighbourhood, smoke weed but I only found that out recently. That's the thing about taboo...it's lots of fun to do but you don't want anyone judging you for it.

 

[KimGordon67]

Fair enough.

As you said in your OP, most of our societal beliefs come from a Judeo-Christian background. Thankfully every few generations rebel and have their own version of a sexual revolution. (Flappers in the 20's, free love of the 70's and the internet porn boom of today) The problem is that since religion has such a strong hold on our society, and they almost all preach monogamy, the fear of eternal punishment probably keeps most people on teh sidelines and even if they do manage to dip their toes in the water they are unlikely to share that info as witnessed by your case and mine. It's the same as smoking weed. A fair amount of the adults I know, and I live in an upper middle class neighbourhood, smoke weed but I only found that out recently. That's the thing about taboo...it's lots of fun to do but you don't want anyone judging you for it.

I don't think religion runs things in quite the same way in other parts of the world - e.g. where I live, it's banned in state-funded schools, and we have no idea what religion our politicians, or even if they follow any religion at all. That's probably why we managed to legalise same sex marriage.
I don't think things are made 'taboo' just to make them more fun ... there's something more fundamental going on there. Also, you're sort of implying that half the fun of non-monogamy is that it's 'naughty' ... I don't really feel that way myself. It just is.

 

[KimGordon67]

There is a great book on this topic I would recommend called "Sex at Dawn" which offers some interesting insight / opinion around non-manogamy being more in our genes than monogamy.

It's also notable that Sex at Dawn hasn't been particularly well received by actual experts in the area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn#Scholarly_reception

 

[Wildecouple]

One of the theories in the book was that monogamy came into prominence around the same time our ancient forefathers started land ownership, as a necessity to maintain land ownership through inheritance.

 

[rimmy]

I don't think religion runs things in quite the same way in other parts of the world - e.g. where I live, it's banned in state-funded schools, and we have no idea what religion our politicians, or even if they follow any religion at all. That's probably why we managed to legalise same sex marriage.
I don't think things are made 'taboo' just to make them more fun ... there's something more fundamental going on there. Also, you're sort of implying that half the fun of non-monogamy is that it's 'naughty' ... I don't really feel that way myself. It just is.

I'm not referring to state sponsored religion or anything like that. I meant that the religious culture is ubiquitous and the ingrained lessons learned as children are hard to shed. Canada has had same sex marriage since 2005 ans we will be legalizing marijuana next year so we are quite progressive. In Montreal we have several swingers clubs and a very large Fetish community, we even have our own Fetish Weekend which attracts people from all over the world, yet talk of polyamory or acceptance of it in public is virtually unheard of.

I was implying no such thing. I was just trying to say that their are plenty of things that people enjoy doing but are not willing to make public for fear of retribution.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm not referring to state sponsored religion or anything like that. I meant that the religious culture is ubiquitous and the ingrained lessons learned as children are hard to shed. Canada has had same sex marriage since 2005 ans we will be legalizing marijuana next year so we are quite progressive. In Montreal we have several swingers clubs and a very large Fetish community, we even have our own Fetish Weekend which attracts people from all over the world, yet talk of polyamory or acceptance of it in public is virtually unheard of.

I was implying no such thing. I was just trying to say that their are plenty of things that people enjoy doing but are not willing to make public for fear of retribution.

OK - it's just when you say things like "That's the thing about taboo...it's lots of fun to do but you don't want anyone judging you for it", it does sound like it being taboo IS at least in part what makes it fun.

I think you're right in that the moral judgements have a basis in religion, but I'm not sure if that's what's maintained the situation.

 

[rimmy]

OK - it's just when you say things like "That's the thing about taboo...it's lots of fun to do but you don't want anyone judging you for it", it does sound like it being taboo IS at least in part what makes it fun.

I think you're right in that the moral judgements have a basis in religion, but I'm not sure if that's what's maintained the situation.

Then what do you think has maintained it?

 

[KimGordon67]

One of the theories in the book was that monogamy came into prominence around the same time our ancient forefathers started land ownership, as a necessity to maintain land ownership through inheritance.

I'm not really sure I'm buying that either ... as I noted above, the book doesn't really have a lot of weight among actual researchers. And that argument's pretty easy to refute - if we're 'naturally' non-monogamous, why didn't they just develop some other system for passing down land?

 

[rimmy]

I'm not really sure I'm buying that either ... as I noted above, the book doesn't really have a lot of weight among actual researchers. And that argument's pretty easy to refute - if we're 'naturally' non-monogamous, why didn't they just develop some other system for passing down land?

I doubt we'll ever truly know how it started but if I had to wager a nickel I'd say it got started by the first guy that didn't want anyone else sleeping with his woman.

 

[Dribble]

From either an evolutionary, heterzygous advantage (genetic), or sociological viewpoint it is easier to argue the advantages of monogomy as our species developed. But today...none of those advantages result in the same impact. I think it is hard to project any view point held in the last 3 centuries on understanding why things are the way they are. No matter what, there always have been outlyiers to the normal data set. These outlyiers arent outlyiers to those around them.

 

[coati]

One of the theories in the book was that monogamy came into prominence around the same time our ancient forefathers started land ownership, as a necessity to maintain land ownership through inheritance.

Many people interpret monogamy itself as a form of ownership, this is, owning another person. I'm not into that.

 

[RedSilk69]

There is as much of an evolutionary basis for homosexuality as there is for people living well past their breeding years: as social animals, we all benefit from having a diverse group that can raise the next generation together. We don't all need to be parents to love and be a part (directly or indirectly) of raising the next generation.

I see the argument for monogamy and land ownership developing together as a strong one. When we were nomadic, strength of bonds across the group was very important - and much like bonobos, sex strengthened bonds. Sure, there was probably serial monogamy; love is a very powerful albeit often temporary force. Once we started to settle down, the idea of owning something quickly transitioned to owning someone - which probably has its roots in slavery. And men having more physical strength meant women were the ones who were owned, and male children the heirs. The 15,000+- years of this arrangement has meant we are our own willing captors.

Personally, since I am a child of this society, I don't think I could be polyamorous - but heck, I could be wrong. I'd rather love-based serial monogamy, interspersed with periods of experimentation.

My 2 cents.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Following on from a thread that I start a while back (http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1287864), various other discussions I've had in here, and a fairly 'interesting' year in my own life, I had a sudden epiphany the other day. Contemporary western culture, and indeed most Judeo-Christian cultures and many others besides, have tended to present monogamy as the ideal - and preferably heterosexual monogamy practiced within the institution of marriage. However, while this is theoretically what we're 'meant' to be doing, evidence clearly suggests that it's not what a great deal of people actually want ... or even what they actually do ... yet they are consistently cast as morally suspect.

It suddenly struck me that instead of trying to 'fix' those who aren't (or don't want to be) monogamous, maybe we should think about changing the system so monogamy isn't the ideal.
(I suspect this only works if you take religion and banal evolutionary psychological explanations for human behaviour out of the mix.)

I tend to feel that the starting point for enforcing monogamy as the ideal was mostly about power and control. Religion, cultural norms etc. are just the tools by which power and control are exercised.

The way that some people seek to control others is a constant throughout history. People like to boil it down to simple statements like "religions cause all the wars." No, religion offers an organized power base that can be usurped and used towards selfish ends. The same can be said of political persuasion, class structures, nationalism etc. And the exercise of power is best achieved by establishing rules which must be enforced or objectives which must be met. It doesn't really matter if the rules or objectives are necessary or even useful as long as they provide a premise for those in power to assert control.

The religious approach to sex has always been curious to me. The bible prohibits adultery (although a man can have many wives/concubines?) but there is no constraint on either gender having sex with other partners before marriage. Most religious people will disagree with this last point - God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their impenitent sins; the apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians advising them not to engage in immoral sexual activity. But that which constitutes impenitent sins or immoral sexual activity is not defined in the scriptures. So the rest of what we have been taught on this point is a human construct. In this light, the bible simply says don't violate your commitment......it doesn't say much at all about sex and does not compel us to enter into a commitment. Personally I think the adultery point needs to be read in the context of the times. Marriage was presumed to involve a commitment of fidelity so the point was about deceit as opposed to sex.

Most of the evolutionary psychology on this point is poorly thought out answers in search of questions. If people (especially women) naturally seek out monogamy as a response to their environment......surely the historically extreme and harsh manner in which society punishes those who don't comply is one of the most compelling elements of that environment. The evolutionary psychology argument doesn't prove that we want to be monogamous. It proves that we don't like being punished.

I would like to think that acceptance of a poly lifestyle will slowly become accepted much the same as how we slowly learned to accept homosexuality - live and let live. However, I think it may be more difficult because it has the potential to undermine our individual power and control. If we accept poly we have to accept that any person could want multiple lovers including our own spouse. And in the absence of a formally sanctioned prohibition we are forced to contemplate the possibility more fully as it applies to us personally (not simply live and let live).

 

[HoldYouDown]

I doubt we'll ever truly know how it started but if I had to wager a nickel I'd say it got started by the first guy that didn't want anyone else sleeping with his woman.

Mate-guarding is certainly a function of evolution.

However I often think of things in the "caveman" context. Certainly not everyone was monogamous in those circumstances. But - it also made sense from a survival standpoint that every one not be fucking each other willy-nilly. A male with limited resources that sires a bunch of mouths-to-feed by multiple women is not going to be a benefit to the tribe, if that makes sense. (An alpha with a hold on vast resources might.) So from a group survival context I can see how monogamy helped keep a balance.

Also, mate-guarding works both ways. Females have an evolutionary incentive to secure resources for offspring. Males have an incentive to ensure their genes are passed down and that they are not cuckolded. Hence the desire to "lock down" a partner.

Nevertheless, if something as simple as lifelong monogamy were the law of the jungle, we wouldn't need legal contracts and armed officers to enforce it. Chew on that...

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[policywank]

I think there is some truth to the notion that some people are heavily invested in the premise that non-monogamy is "wrong". This position empowers them to control their own relationship(s) based upon what they regard as some kind of universal truth which precludes certain things they don't want to contemplate.

"If you want to be with me you will forsake all other women/men regardless of whether I am sufficiently attentive (or able to satisfy) your sexual desires and needs." Society would have us believe that this is just the way it is. There is no other choice but to stay single. And if the married sex life is not so great that is the trade-off you make to be an honourable spouse and partner.

Sex is sort of this odd blindspot where we allow this to happen. No matter the circumstances the spouse who does not want to or ceases to be monogamous is deemed in the wrong. Not everyone feels this way of course. But a lot do in part because it allows them to ignore any sexual considerations that they find inconvenient.

 

[policywank]

Mate-guarding is certainly a function of evolution.

However I often think of things in the "caveman" context. Certainly not everyone was monogamous in those circumstances. But - it also made sense from a survival standpoint that every one not be fucking each other willy-nilly. A male with limited resources that sires a bunch of mouths-to-feed by multiple women is not going to be a benefit to the tribe, if that makes sense. (An alpha with a hold on vast resources might.) So from a group survival context I can see how monogamy helped keep a balance.

Also, mate-guarding works both ways. Females have an evolutionary incentive to secure resources for offspring. Males have an incentive to ensure their genes are passed down and that they are not cuckolded. Hence the desire to "lock down" a partner.

Nevertheless, if something as simple as lifelong monogamy were the law of the jungle, we wouldn't need legal contracts and armed officers to enforce it. Chew on that...

I wonder if there is an element of the "lesser" members of the tribe levelling the playing field for themselves. To take the simple caveman example.....

Imagine 10 men......one strong Alpha and nine lesser males.....and ten women. Without collective rules it might well end up with the Alpha claiming the women he wants and letting the other nine share the ones he doesn't want. Good for the Alpha, fairly good for the women (who either stay with the Alpha or claim more than one man each), not good for the other guys.

Those nine guys are very incentivized to want a one man/one woman policy. And if they work together maybe they can enforce it.

In the context of my last point and to pick on the guys for a moment.....the law of the jungle approach means the weaker males get no woman or share the least desirable women.....the organized rules approach means they are likely to get one woman.......and if she deviates, it is because she is in the wrong not because he is simply a lesser male. He is quite likely to get heavily invested in the notion of monogamy and seek to pressure the women into doing likewise.

 

[KimGordon67]

It's interesting that my original post has been interpreted as a question about 'causes', which it very definitely wasn't. I'm always suspicious of causal explanations, especially in the area of sexuality. Evolution etc simply doesn't, and can't, explain 99% of human behaviour, and I don't think I necessarily want it to either. For me, the 'problem' is never why does a certain thing happen/exist, but rather does that thing make life unpleasant for specific groups of people, and if so, is there anything we can do about it without making life unpleasant for anyone else. So, as a feminist, for me the 'cause' of patriarchy is somewhat irrelevant - rather, I want to work on dismantling it so that the lives of most women and a lot of men are improved.

My musing was more to point out how inadequately the system actually works. It's like the constantly repeated trope that teenagers shouldn't have sex, and telling them that is the best way to ensure they don't ... in spite of the fact that literally centuries of evidence proves that in almost all contexts, teenagers will find ways to have sex regardless of how much they're told not too. Finding new ways of preventing it just seems so counter-productive - dealing with the reality makes about a thousand times more sense, because then you can mitigate the negative consequences more readily.

Similarly, telling people to be faithful just seems to have been a doomed endeavour since forever, and the socially prevalent expectation (and accompany moral judgements) causes far more harm than good. If, instead, we accepted that some people just aren't monogamous, like some people aren't heterosexual, and got on with working out a way of making that work for everyone, it would seem so much more logical.

 

[Dribble]

People see what they want to see. People do what they want to do. I find it hilarious one side says be more open minded...but their words are anything but open minded. The other side says the same thing...and lo and behold...their words are just as empty.

 

[KimGordon67]

I don't think it matters how or why so much.

Some people feel inherently monogamous, some feel poly. How we got that way is interesting; but I don't thing either need be considered right or wrong, better or worse, natural or Unnatural. The thing is to do what you do with morality and good will and communication and being open to the needs of others involved and communicative where you are struggling; in any type of relationship!

I need a 'like' button for this.