The Case Aginst Monogomy.
- Thread starter JackLuis
- Start date
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
OK Ok, it is not a clean hand off. Shoot!
You have to look at the end of the article, where she's kicking Libermans ass about being a Republican Shill.
At the very end are links to other sites, look for the one that says:
"so we'll check in with Jenny Block, who wrote a Newsweek web exclusive: The Case Against Monogamy."
Click on there and check out the video and the article. I'm sure Stella will approve.
You have to look at the end of the article, where she's kicking Libermans ass about being a Republican Shill.
At the very end are links to other sites, look for the one that says:
"so we'll check in with Jenny Block, who wrote a Newsweek web exclusive: The Case Against Monogamy."
Click on there and check out the video and the article. I'm sure Stella will approve.
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
My point.
Got so distracted by the linking, that I forgot to say what I thought.
Does Monogomy have any effect on survival? Does it provide an edge over , Non-Mog alternitives?
Or is it a result of the Patriarch's demand to control "more than his share"?
Do the dynamics of polandry make for a stable life?
On second thought, why do I care?
Got so distracted by the linking, that I forgot to say what I thought.
Does Monogomy have any effect on survival? Does it provide an edge over , Non-Mog alternitives?
Or is it a result of the Patriarch's demand to control "more than his share"?
Do the dynamics of polandry make for a stable life?
On second thought, why do I care?
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
Got so distracted by the linking, that I forgot to say what I thought.
Does Monogomy have any effect on survival? Does it provide an edge over , Non-Mog alternitives?
Or is it a result of the Patriarch's demand to control "more than his share"?
Do the dynamics of polandry make for a stable life?
On second thought, why do I care?
Do you have a link so we don't have to go digging for the article? Or just a title, something that leads there?
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
Here is the link
You have to look at the end of the article, where she's kicking Libermans ass about being a Republican Shill.
At the very end are links to other sites, look for the one that says:
"so we'll check in with Jenny Block, who wrote a Newsweek web exclusive: The Case Against Monogamy."
Click on there and check out the video and the article. I'm sure Stella will approve.
There you are Bear. Thanks for letting me know.
You have to look at the end of the article, where she's kicking Libermans ass about being a Republican Shill.
At the very end are links to other sites, look for the one that says:
"so we'll check in with Jenny Block, who wrote a Newsweek web exclusive: The Case Against Monogamy."
Click on there and check out the video and the article. I'm sure Stella will approve.
There you are Bear. Thanks for letting me know.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
it's a nice little article and vid, thanks!
nope. and why does "survival" always come into these thoughts anyway? Survival of what?Got so distracted by the linking, that I forgot to say what I thought.
Does Monogomy have any effect on survival? Does it provide an edge over , Non-Mog alternitives?
maybe at times, but really it's just a cultural norm, which are pretty self-sustaining critters. This one has had very enthusiastic adherents, via Xtianity.
nothing makes for a stable life in and of itself. How many people do you know who live in absolute chaos even though they're monogamous-- or because they are, or because they promised they would be?
That's the question!On second thought, why do I care?
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
You might care because you're the kind of person who likes to get inside other people's skins, AKA a writer?I thought you'd like it. You don't see that everyday do you?
I should care ?
I've been monogamist for 41 years and married for 37.
Monogamy can also be monotonous I understand.
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
My writing is far from monogamous.
D
DeeZire
Guest
Monogamy works great at the beginning and the end of a relationship. It's the middle that sucks. I think monogamy would work much better if the participants scheduled periodic breaks - like every seven years - after which they would reconnect and continue being monogamous. That way they'd have something to look forward to.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
WHy didn't you just post a link to the article in question?
She's very right that Tiger Wood's sexual behavior shouldn't concern anyone else, let alone surprise them, and that everyone has to find their own comfort zone on the monamory-polyamory scale, but I think the problem's a little more complicated than, "Love, and do what thou wilt."
First of all, it's entirely legitimate to ask whether monogamy has any survival value to the genes that favor it. A woman is very dependent on her mate in the late stages of pregnancy and post-partum, so it's in the female's interest to maintain a monogamous relationship. So for her, there's survival value in monogamy. The man, though, can impregnate a woman and foist her off on another man for the care-giving, so it's in his interest to be polygamous. That seems to be pretty much what we see in society at large. (I'm talking here only about heterosexual polyamory. Homosexual is an entirely different case.)
But sex is much more than just a means of reproduction among humans. It's a social tool, a status symbol, a type of interpersonal bond, an organizing factor, a sensual pleasure. People rarely have affairs for reproductive reasons. They have them for all these other reasons. I don't know for sure but I'd imagine that a society of monogamous relationships -- even a society of monogamous relationships that allows the occasional illicit affair -- is probably more stable than a polyamorous one. There's less strife and discord and mistrust. And insofar as social stability is a factor in human survival, this could be a factor.
In any case, I really don't believe that monogamy is something that's been imposed on us from above against our wills by the church or something, as much as we'd like to believe that. I think for all of us it's an ideal, something we'd really like to be true. None of us enter into a relationship thinking, "Oh, this one will do until the next one comes along." We always assume that this one is THE one, because we assume that THE one exists. (And if not THE one, then THE two, or THE three. But never THE endless stream...)
She's very right that Tiger Wood's sexual behavior shouldn't concern anyone else, let alone surprise them, and that everyone has to find their own comfort zone on the monamory-polyamory scale, but I think the problem's a little more complicated than, "Love, and do what thou wilt."
First of all, it's entirely legitimate to ask whether monogamy has any survival value to the genes that favor it. A woman is very dependent on her mate in the late stages of pregnancy and post-partum, so it's in the female's interest to maintain a monogamous relationship. So for her, there's survival value in monogamy. The man, though, can impregnate a woman and foist her off on another man for the care-giving, so it's in his interest to be polygamous. That seems to be pretty much what we see in society at large. (I'm talking here only about heterosexual polyamory. Homosexual is an entirely different case.)
But sex is much more than just a means of reproduction among humans. It's a social tool, a status symbol, a type of interpersonal bond, an organizing factor, a sensual pleasure. People rarely have affairs for reproductive reasons. They have them for all these other reasons. I don't know for sure but I'd imagine that a society of monogamous relationships -- even a society of monogamous relationships that allows the occasional illicit affair -- is probably more stable than a polyamorous one. There's less strife and discord and mistrust. And insofar as social stability is a factor in human survival, this could be a factor.
In any case, I really don't believe that monogamy is something that's been imposed on us from above against our wills by the church or something, as much as we'd like to believe that. I think for all of us it's an ideal, something we'd really like to be true. None of us enter into a relationship thinking, "Oh, this one will do until the next one comes along." We always assume that this one is THE one, because we assume that THE one exists. (And if not THE one, then THE two, or THE three. But never THE endless stream...)
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
The biological facts are that both sexes are "built to cheat" - and in some respects, monogamy is more the exception than the norm for the vast majority of Mammalian species, including hominids - it has to do with the advantages of genetic diversity in populations.
Humans are interesting however, in that on the flip side, monogamy isn't really "unnatural" per se, and monogamous tendencies are a distinct trait - which itself has to do with r vs. K reproductive strategies, which can be more informally describes as quantitative vs. qualitative approaches to reproduction and childrearing.
Species under stress, which usually translates into higher infant mortality rates, tend towards r strategies, i.e. producing more and more genetically diverse offspring.
As a species however, we have the most marked and extensive bias towards neoteney, i.e, the retention of adolescent and/or childish traits into adulthood, and our children require far more extensive care and nurturing to optimize this.
The advantages here are include mental growth and development, which is vastly accelerated in infancy and childhood, as well as play behaviors which are highly efficient means of learning, and critical to our success as a species.
This particular trait however, is itself dependent on close and stable social ties, and that's where monogamy offers a critical advantage - it maximizes K strategies, although at the expense of genetic diversity.
There are times when r strategies make sense, if you've ever read Mutiny on the Bounty, it's a fairly grim moral fable on what can happen if you insist on maintaining strict monogamy under conditions of a distorted male:female population ratio.
By the same token, polygyny specifically can distort this ratio and result in a great deal of destabilizing social unrest, another reason monogamy is the historical norm, whether enforced or not - even in countries where polygyny is legal, typically, around 80% of the population remains monogamous.
Oddly, polyandry is, and has always been very common, in the form of prostitution, and while never socially acceptable, appears to be a stable attribute of human cultures of any size, which is probably attributable to the differing reproductive cycles of males and females, i.e., men need to cycle their Semen about every Three days, whereas women only cycle once a month, although they too benefit from otherwise social sexual activities.
Again, biologically, a monogamous dyad covers all the bases - it does sacrifice a certain amount of genetic diversity but maximizes neotenic advantages, at least theoretically.
Not surprisingly, Americans have among the lowest rates of genetic diversity, whereas Africans have the highest levels of genetic diversity - they also live under some of the harshest environmental conditions on the planet.
Otherwise, different populations have evolved different ways of having their cake and eating it too, in the US we commonly engage in serial monogamy, while in France and Japan, social monogamy is acceptable; i.e., couples remain married and maintain a stable home, but have outside relationships, typically, after the children are grown.
The reason there is no "norm" particularly, is possibly that around the time when hominids became bipedal, female proto-human hominids lost estrus, which regulates most mammalian sexual behavior, and I believe this is why humans have such a highly diversified approach to sexuality, having lost all but the most basic biological urges, we've sort of had to make it up as we went along.
I think this is supported by the statistics, in which monogamy is the statistical "norm", i.e., about 80%, although this probably included serial monogamy, with about 15 to 20% engaging in polysexual behaviors, which includes cheating - roughly the statistical balance between Kink and Vanilla, and although while there may be some overlap, they're not the same groups of people.
The argument against monogamy as the only norm is fairly easy to argue: total monogamy is practically unknown, it has historically been enforced with Draconian restrictions, stripping women of political and economic power and institutionalizing rape and physical abuse, both marital and as punishment for straying, all of which can be easily construed as egregious human rights abuses that begs the question in terms of objective moral and/or ethical assessment, i.e., monogamy is "good" - because it is.
Just not for everybody.
It is interesting that the statistical values are equivalent, monogamy is a highly successful social adaptation, but it has it's limitations, and in some cases, social "innovators" otherwise on the fringe, may be preserving behavioral traits that are useful if conditions change.
These fringe elements are marginalized due largely to the free rider effect, i.e., monogamy is also a useful tool of social control, it provides a reliable tool for blackmail for one thing, given the natural, normative propensities of human beings to do what they do, and this is very convenient for institutions devoted to social control for whatever reason, usually wealth and power, and typically, they will exempt themselves, being only human.
If anything, I think the Tiger Woods incident makes a strong case for social monogamy, where applicable - i.e., the stress on the Woods children from the media feeding frenzy is likely to far outweigh the stress from the incident itself; it puts Nordegren in a position that limits her options in terms of damage control, and in general, it's unlikely this marriage will survive - not especially news when it comes to celebrities, but still, acceptance of social monogamy would essentially make it a judgment call on the part of the people actually involved, rather than copy to fill out air time and column inches, or advance political agendas.
Humans are interesting however, in that on the flip side, monogamy isn't really "unnatural" per se, and monogamous tendencies are a distinct trait - which itself has to do with r vs. K reproductive strategies, which can be more informally describes as quantitative vs. qualitative approaches to reproduction and childrearing.
Species under stress, which usually translates into higher infant mortality rates, tend towards r strategies, i.e. producing more and more genetically diverse offspring.
As a species however, we have the most marked and extensive bias towards neoteney, i.e, the retention of adolescent and/or childish traits into adulthood, and our children require far more extensive care and nurturing to optimize this.
The advantages here are include mental growth and development, which is vastly accelerated in infancy and childhood, as well as play behaviors which are highly efficient means of learning, and critical to our success as a species.
This particular trait however, is itself dependent on close and stable social ties, and that's where monogamy offers a critical advantage - it maximizes K strategies, although at the expense of genetic diversity.
There are times when r strategies make sense, if you've ever read Mutiny on the Bounty, it's a fairly grim moral fable on what can happen if you insist on maintaining strict monogamy under conditions of a distorted male:female population ratio.
By the same token, polygyny specifically can distort this ratio and result in a great deal of destabilizing social unrest, another reason monogamy is the historical norm, whether enforced or not - even in countries where polygyny is legal, typically, around 80% of the population remains monogamous.
Oddly, polyandry is, and has always been very common, in the form of prostitution, and while never socially acceptable, appears to be a stable attribute of human cultures of any size, which is probably attributable to the differing reproductive cycles of males and females, i.e., men need to cycle their Semen about every Three days, whereas women only cycle once a month, although they too benefit from otherwise social sexual activities.
Again, biologically, a monogamous dyad covers all the bases - it does sacrifice a certain amount of genetic diversity but maximizes neotenic advantages, at least theoretically.
Not surprisingly, Americans have among the lowest rates of genetic diversity, whereas Africans have the highest levels of genetic diversity - they also live under some of the harshest environmental conditions on the planet.
Otherwise, different populations have evolved different ways of having their cake and eating it too, in the US we commonly engage in serial monogamy, while in France and Japan, social monogamy is acceptable; i.e., couples remain married and maintain a stable home, but have outside relationships, typically, after the children are grown.
The reason there is no "norm" particularly, is possibly that around the time when hominids became bipedal, female proto-human hominids lost estrus, which regulates most mammalian sexual behavior, and I believe this is why humans have such a highly diversified approach to sexuality, having lost all but the most basic biological urges, we've sort of had to make it up as we went along.
I think this is supported by the statistics, in which monogamy is the statistical "norm", i.e., about 80%, although this probably included serial monogamy, with about 15 to 20% engaging in polysexual behaviors, which includes cheating - roughly the statistical balance between Kink and Vanilla, and although while there may be some overlap, they're not the same groups of people.
The argument against monogamy as the only norm is fairly easy to argue: total monogamy is practically unknown, it has historically been enforced with Draconian restrictions, stripping women of political and economic power and institutionalizing rape and physical abuse, both marital and as punishment for straying, all of which can be easily construed as egregious human rights abuses that begs the question in terms of objective moral and/or ethical assessment, i.e., monogamy is "good" - because it is.
Just not for everybody.
It is interesting that the statistical values are equivalent, monogamy is a highly successful social adaptation, but it has it's limitations, and in some cases, social "innovators" otherwise on the fringe, may be preserving behavioral traits that are useful if conditions change.
These fringe elements are marginalized due largely to the free rider effect, i.e., monogamy is also a useful tool of social control, it provides a reliable tool for blackmail for one thing, given the natural, normative propensities of human beings to do what they do, and this is very convenient for institutions devoted to social control for whatever reason, usually wealth and power, and typically, they will exempt themselves, being only human.
If anything, I think the Tiger Woods incident makes a strong case for social monogamy, where applicable - i.e., the stress on the Woods children from the media feeding frenzy is likely to far outweigh the stress from the incident itself; it puts Nordegren in a position that limits her options in terms of damage control, and in general, it's unlikely this marriage will survive - not especially news when it comes to celebrities, but still, acceptance of social monogamy would essentially make it a judgment call on the part of the people actually involved, rather than copy to fill out air time and column inches, or advance political agendas.
Last edited:
OnlyByMoonlight
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Posts
- 181
I agree with her that humans by nature aren't monogamous, but I think the important issue is trust. I think it okay to have other partners, but this should be agreed upon by both parties. Having more partners increases your risk for getting STDs and your partner needs to know that before they have sex with you. And there's the trust issue. being faithful shows that you respect your relationship and your partner. If you deliberatly choose to have secret affairs, especially repeatedly, I think it shows that you don't really respect your partner cause you're setting them up to be hurt.
If a sig. other cheated on me I would break it off because he has shown that he doesn't care about my safety or feelings not cause I think its 'morally wrong'
If a sig. other cheated on me I would break it off because he has shown that he doesn't care about my safety or feelings not cause I think its 'morally wrong'
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
Ah there is the idea I was trying to reach. Thanks Xssve for putting it into words.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
I finally got to the article. I'm not impressed. Not that there is anything wrong with what she says, on the surface, but there are a lot of layers the author apparently doesn't pay any attention to. It appalls me that people pay so little attention to scientific research, yanno.
There is a well-documented hormone called vasopressin. I think that's the spelling. It's nick-named the 'nesting hormone'. Individuals with high levels of it are strictly monogamous. We (yeah, that includes the bear) who are Hi-V don't feel any particular itch to leave the relationship we're in. Lo-V individuals are strongly prone to promiscuity. As intelligent beings we do indeed have choices but without the self-awareness of our own body chemistry, those choices are uniformed and ignorant. If something dreadful happened to HM, would I be looking for a new partner? You bet! If a pair of ladies were interested in sharing me do you think the vasopressin would stop me from accepting? Fat chance! How about if a couple invited me into a triad? Good question. I'll answer it should the occasion arise.
The main point is that making general statements about "people" is terribly shallow. Us mammalian types are far more complicated than that. Even the voles are . . .
There is a well-documented hormone called vasopressin. I think that's the spelling. It's nick-named the 'nesting hormone'. Individuals with high levels of it are strictly monogamous. We (yeah, that includes the bear) who are Hi-V don't feel any particular itch to leave the relationship we're in. Lo-V individuals are strongly prone to promiscuity. As intelligent beings we do indeed have choices but without the self-awareness of our own body chemistry, those choices are uniformed and ignorant. If something dreadful happened to HM, would I be looking for a new partner? You bet! If a pair of ladies were interested in sharing me do you think the vasopressin would stop me from accepting? Fat chance! How about if a couple invited me into a triad? Good question. I'll answer it should the occasion arise.
The main point is that making general statements about "people" is terribly shallow. Us mammalian types are far more complicated than that. Even the voles are . . .
JamesSD
Back, at least for now?
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Posts
- 2,461
Serial monogamy is the modern day polygamy.
I think we all know someone who married one person young, had child(ren), divorced, remarried, and produced more offspring. My uncle is one of those people. I have a couple friends who are products of second marriages, and a couple more who have half-brothers and sisters who are the result of later marriages. One of my good friends has a cousin who has three babies from different daddies, one of which she was married to for a time!
There's some scientific evidence that "The Seven Year Itch" is very real. The theory is 6-7 years is about the amount of time necessary to raise a child past the most vulnerable stages of life. Because men are sexually potent and fertile into our 50s and 60s it's highly feasible for a single man to father children with several different women. And a woman who starts early can easily do the same, as I noted above.
I'm not making any comment on if this is "good" or "bad". Plenty of people get married, have kids, and stay together monogamously. I'm far more content being monogamous at 30 than I was at 20 (not that I was married, but I was in a sexually exclusive relationship).
I think we all know someone who married one person young, had child(ren), divorced, remarried, and produced more offspring. My uncle is one of those people. I have a couple friends who are products of second marriages, and a couple more who have half-brothers and sisters who are the result of later marriages. One of my good friends has a cousin who has three babies from different daddies, one of which she was married to for a time!
There's some scientific evidence that "The Seven Year Itch" is very real. The theory is 6-7 years is about the amount of time necessary to raise a child past the most vulnerable stages of life. Because men are sexually potent and fertile into our 50s and 60s it's highly feasible for a single man to father children with several different women. And a woman who starts early can easily do the same, as I noted above.
I'm not making any comment on if this is "good" or "bad". Plenty of people get married, have kids, and stay together monogamously. I'm far more content being monogamous at 30 than I was at 20 (not that I was married, but I was in a sexually exclusive relationship).
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Yeah, that's what I thought too, that her article was unusually shallow and subjective and a typical case of "What's good for me is good for everyone."
I also enjoyed the fact that the open and enlightened triangle she finally found herself in involved her husband and a female lover. I wonder how accepting hubby would have been of another male lover?
I think it's a very good question to ask that, if humans aren't "naturally" monogamous, why then are they living everywhere monogamously? Who or what is it that's holding a gun to their heads and forcing them?
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
Clearly, monogamy has significant utility, it's simpler for one thing, and it predates Christianity by a long stretch, and is hardly the invention of Christians, in spite of their attempt to patent it, and presumably it's part of tribal organization which predates urban civilization - at the same time, poly offers significant advantages in an age that has seen the decline of the extended family, and while it appears to be more commonly found at either end of the curve, i.e., young people who haven't started families yet, and older people whose kids are mostly grown, it possibly offers the greatest benefits to people with children, i.e., the real threat to the "nuclear family" is the time demands when a Two income household is the norm - something has to suffer, and typically, it's family time.
In fact, poly really has benefits that have nothing to do with sex, it's more a matter that when people are living in close proximity, sexual tensions tend to arise.
The caveat is that it requires higher levels of emotional and social maturity to deal with them upfront.
In fact, poly really has benefits that have nothing to do with sex, it's more a matter that when people are living in close proximity, sexual tensions tend to arise.
The caveat is that it requires higher levels of emotional and social maturity to deal with them upfront.
Last edited:
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
That leaves you out.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Thank heaven for little girls
for little girls get bigger every day!
Thank heaven for little girls
they grow up in the most delightful way!
Those little eyes so helpless and appealing
one day will flash and send you crashin' thru the ceilin'
Thank heaven for little girls
thank heaven for them all,
no matter where no matter who
for without them, what would little boys do?
Thank heaven... thank heaven...
Thank heaven for little girls!
for little girls get bigger every day!
Thank heaven for little girls
they grow up in the most delightful way!
Those little eyes so helpless and appealing
one day will flash and send you crashin' thru the ceilin'
Thank heaven for little girls
thank heaven for them all,
no matter where no matter who
for without them, what would little boys do?
Thank heaven... thank heaven...
Thank heaven for little girls!
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Very well said, xssve
But all interpersonal tensions need high levels of maturity to deal with them-- we are given a few tools, somewhat primitive, for monogamous issues, that suffice in lieu of maturity. We think that poly situations are more difficult, but only because they aren't common and the tools aren't as readily available.
Similar threads
