What exactly is the point of monogamy? Where did the idea come from and why is it so heavily rooted in our psyches? Monogamy is one of the most unhealthy and unnatural practices that is widely accepted as the most healthy and "family friendly" way to live. But it really is complete ass. All you have to do is look at nature to see that generally no animals practice monogamy, especially primates. It's a fairly recent practice, too. Not long ago, people having mistresses while married wasn't even considered, it just was, sex didn't mean a damn thing. Things of course changed as the Catholic Church gained power and Catholicism spread. Adultery was now a sin, not just a small sin, but one of the 10 ****ing commandments. It seems to have only gained in power with the widespread amounts of American propaganda filling people's heads with the idea of the "perfect american family" and family values. Now, let's discuss, I'll try not to go into too much of a tangent here and just link a few resources for you to check out.
As for myself, I think it's completely irrational, conditioned bullshit, though I still can't accept the idea of someone I love having sex with another person...I know unnatural, but watdo.
BMC Evolutionary Biology | Full text | Evidence that pairing with genetically similar mates is maladaptive in a monogamous bird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgYZCfKKqZc
Watch Penn And Teller Bullshit - Season 3, Episode 2 - Family Values Putlocker , Sockshare
I have personally witnessed several monogamous pairs of Gibbons at my local Zoo. Not to mention that there are several birds that form monogamous relationships. You must have more research before you pronounce an over-arching generalization on nature.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
-Sin
Fear not, this is not...the end of this world.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."
I.... Uh. I.. Uh.
I have no idea what to say to this. But I know that dude from Sister Wives agrees with you!
In this day and age though, being a.. non-monogamist in the sense that -you- mean can be detrimental if children are involved and see that going on. It can affect them in a bad way mentally & emotionally, regardless of the situation. And the fact is, it's just not socially acceptable anymore.
And to bring in another scenario, it might have been ok for -men- to have a mistress, but damn if the woman does the same thing. She would get stoned to death or burned at the stake or whatever. And technically, it's -still- a thing. If my ex were to catch me texting another guy - regardless if it were a co-worker or not, he'd flip his shyt. But it was ok for all these random girls to be texting -him-. It was a major point of contention between the two of us - all the time.
>ignores link referring to said birds
>accuses someone of lack of research
Nice. As I said, "generally" because the number is very few. The particular link goes on to discuss the negative repercussions these birds encounter due to seeking out genetically similar mates and so on. Also, Gibbon Tale " It has long been believed that gibbons form life-long monogamous relationships with a mate. More recent studies have found that while gibbons have a paired mating system similar to monogamy, it may involve polyandry, copulation outside the bonded pair, as well as serial monogamy (Sommer and Reichard 2000)." Though they may bond, like most primates, their cocks are community property.
I tried to not go on a tangent and post an essay like I usually do to see where it goes. I was HOPING people would click the resources before responding, might be asking a lot, but I was far too lazy.
How do you figure? Studies have shown that having one parent can be detrimental, but I've yet to see anything suggesting polygamy is bad (besides the crazy cult leader types that have 50 wives, obviously something of that size has it's problems, but I'm discussing smaller groups, 3+ people). The second episode I linked actually interviews and discusses a 4 way relationship!
I.... Uh. I.. Uh.
I have no idea what to say to this. But I know that dude from Sister Wives agrees with you!
In this day and age though, being a.. non-monogamist in the sense that -you- mean can be detrimental if children are involved and see that going on. It can affect them in a bad way mentally & emotionally, regardless of the situation. And the fact is, it's just not socially acceptable anymore.
Perhaps due to outside judgment, but kids with gay parents face the same issues. These things shouldn't be considered "bad" because of outside hatred.
This is the main problem, though it IS a bit natural, yet primitive. It's the whole alpha male complex, men who get a lot of sex are usually regarded as being good at being a man, but women are supposed to remain pure, all that stuff.And to bring in another scenario, it might have been ok for -men- to have a mistress, but damn if the woman does the same thing. She would get stoned to death or burned at the stake or whatever. And technically, it's -still- a thing. If my ex were to catch me texting another guy - regardless if it were a co-worker or not, he'd flip his shyt. But it was ok for all these random girls to be texting -him-. It was a major point of contention between the two of us - all the time.
I admit... You caught me napping. I didn't click your link. I didn't click the links provided the last three times this topic has been posted. I most likely won't click the links the next time it is. The majority of this and the previous post is actually an automated reply based on a template I designed in 2008. Nature is a funny beast. Anything that occurs in it IS by definition, natural. So the classifying of any behavior or action as unnatural is false on general principle. Snakes have split penises. Some gamers will always play single player. *insert witty comment*Some players will always end up with only one "better" half.*/insert witty comment* Crying about it being unfair or unnatural is unhelpful and ineffective at changing it. *shrugs* *insert argument specific comment*Don't be monogamous. Be polygamous. Look down on long happy marriages if it gets you through the night or therapy. Hell, I'm asexual and single and I don't want to change that arrangement.*insert argument specific comment* But you don't hear me jumping up and down like an inverted preacher on the streets with a sandwich board. You don't see me ****ing with the apparatus.
Love,
-Sin
Fear not, this is not...the end of this world.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."
I'm not complaining at all, as I said, I practice monogamy myself. I just find all the things embedded in our minds that send us in the wrong direction (genetically, evolutionary, survival of the fittest, etc) to be quite interesting to think about and discuss. I AM annoyed by the fact that we ARE brainwashed by the propaganda of proper family values and all that shit.
Well, no one...I repeat...no one...Likes values/morals/ethics/maxims shoved down their throat or perpetuated in brainwashing-type memes. I admit, that does tend to bias people(myself included) against said item the propaganda is forcing. It's like meeting an annoying salesman who tries to sell you with slogans, mission statements, a grin and a thumbs-up. I admit, that as a species we've past that marker cue, centuries back. And if that was all that was keeping Monogamy going, then it should die a screaming death. But it isn't. It's something basic and intrinsic to every human. The choice to deny or rebel is always there, but for whatever reason it's the norm and the path of least resistance. As a Taoist, I find fighting an awkward or unfair societal norm as a basic right of any human. I find, however, fighting a basic and reoccurring trend in human behavior pointless...
-Sin
Fear not, this is not...the end of this world.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."
You'd think that the Catholic Church would consider celibate, virginal men as the ideal family structure. Or you'd think that the Catholic Church would be all for polyagmy... the Bible's full of it. Have you read Genesis? Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, King ****ing David ---- all had multiple wives. Abraham, the foundation of Christianity, Judaism and Islam (and therefore, the founding figure of the religions of most of the people in the world) was not monogamous. King David had at least five wives. God directly instructed several biblical figures to take multiple wives, if the Old Testament is to be taken literally. I think your thesis about religion itself causing this situation is incorrect. Something else has come up since to cause the current situation.
Adultery is having sex outside of marriage. If you marry multiple people and have sex with all of them (even at the same time), you are not being adulterous. Ergo, polygamy in itself isn't the grave sin you say it is. Again, it's not religion itself, it's something else.
I don't know where the idea of monogamy has come from, or how it got so powerful. However I think maybe its status in modern law has more to do with taxation and path dependence than anything else. Inheritance issues are difficult as it is, but how do you determine who inherits a patriarch or matriarch's wealth when they have multiple partners, and multiple children to each partner? Who inherits their land? Does a legal union exist between each partner separately, or only between two at one time? This latter issue is important. If I have one wife, and we buy a house together but have no children, and then I take a second wife and have a children with her--while living in the house Wife A and I own---and then I die... do wife B and my child get to live in the house? Wife A and Wife B have no legal union. These situations are immeasurably complex. It is simpler for everyone involved to restrict marriage to two consenting, adult partners.
I have no issue with people being attracted to multiple people and if they consent, they can have as much or as little sex with as many or as few people as they like. I've demonstrated that the major religions don't or shouldn't care.
But I think the state cares.
I'm a "to each their own" mentality. If married people or others in committed relationships are ok with stuff on the side, go for it.
I only feel it's wrong if one person isn't okay with it. But that's for the couple to decide.
I'm not sure how I feel about the religious side of things. There are things in the bible that most people agree are outdated, I'm on my phone so can't link anything... but I do remember stuff like being stoned to death for things that are socially acceptable now.
It's the path of least resistance because it's what we're conditioned to believe mixed with the typical territorial bullshit.
The Old Testament isn't the standard for Catholic beliefs. That's why Jesus was said to have died on the cross, to throw the old rules out the window and all that, the sins of the past have been atoned for. I'm not sure WHAT or WHY it changed, but it most certainly did. I still find it odd that "holy men" have to remain virgins and never take a wife. It's not a problem with jews, so...why the ****?
I'm not referring to polygamy, really, when I say monogamy and polygamy, I mean it in the sexual/relationship sense, not just marriage, I'm not sure of any better terms :/ BUT, Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it stands, the catholic church finds it immoral. So...Adultery is having sex outside of marriage. If you marry multiple people and have sex with all of them (even at the same time), you are not being adulterous. Ergo, polygamy in itself isn't the grave sin you say it is. Again, it's not religion itself, it's something else.
I don't see any reason taxation should really play a role, if anything, it's kinda discrimination in itself, but oh well. Anyway, I would assume it would be done like it always was, everything is left to the kids, split equally.I don't know where the idea of monogamy has come from, or how it got so powerful. However I think maybe its status in modern law has more to do with taxation and path dependence than anything else. Inheritance issues are difficult as it is, but how do you determine who inherits a patriarch or matriarch's wealth when they have multiple partners, and multiple children to each partner? Who inherits their land? Does a legal union exist between each partner separately, or only between two at one time? This latter issue is important. If I have one wife, and we buy a house together but have no children, and then I take a second wife and have a children with her--while living in the house Wife A and I own---and then I die... do wife B and my child get to live in the house? Wife A and Wife B have no legal union. These situations are immeasurably complex. It is simpler for everyone involved to restrict marriage to two consenting, adult partners.
once again, Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI have no issue with people being attracted to multiple people and if they consent, they can have as much or as little sex with as many or as few people as they like. I've demonstrated that the major religions don't or shouldn't care.
But I think the state cares.
You suggested that polygamy was frowned upon within Christianity because adultery was a sin explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments. I said that doesn't make sense because polygamy isn't necessarily adultery, and certainly wasn't adultery for the Israelites of Moses' era for whom having multiple wives (and "going inside" multiple wives) was often considered a direct order from God, particularly when at least one wife was "barren". Thus it's probably some other influence on Christianity that does not relate to their holy text...I'm not referring to polygamy, really, when I say monogamy and polygamy, I mean it in the sexual/relationship sense, not just marriage, I'm not sure of any better terms :/ BUT, Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it stands, the catholic church finds it immoral. So...
I think the reason it is a no-no in Christianity (and by inheritance, the Western world in particular) is the influence of the Roman Empire. If polygamy was still practised at the time of Christ (there is some--but limited--evidence that it was), it certainly wasn't considered good practice by the Romans of the time. I still think that Western and secular objections to the practice have been more relevant in marginalising it than have religious ones, especially considering the preponderance of modern religions and cultures that consider it in some form to be OK (some varieties of Islam, and Mormonism, in particular), and the fact that the countries in which it is not criminal are more religious/less secular (Islamic) and generally North African and Middle Eastern, where polygamy has been practised unbroken for hundreds if not thousands of years: link.
However in those same countries, marriage is generally not a choice for the female. Forced marriage is common. Criminalising polygamy may be one way to stop forced marriage.
Last edited by Alpha; 07-13-2013 at 07:50 PM.
Adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia How is it surprising that Christianity is filled with hypocrisy >_>
Let's not forget the Catholic domination of Rome. All those religions are rather interconnected, same with the basic morals.I think the reason it is a no-no in Christianity (and by inheritance, the Western world in particular) is the influence of the Roman Empire. If polygamy was still practised at the time of Christ (there is some--but limited--evidence that it was), it certainly wasn't considered good practice by the Romans of the time. I still think that Western and secular objections to the practice have been more relevant in marginalising it than have religious ones, especially considering the preponderance of modern religions and cultures that consider it in some form to be OK (some varieties of Islam, and Mormonism, in particular), and the fact that the countries in which it is not criminal are more religious/less secular (Islamic) and generally North African and Middle Eastern, where polygamy has been practised unbroken for hundreds if not thousands of years: link.
That's one hell of a theory :IHowever in those same countries, marriage is generally not a choice for the female. Forced marriage is common. Criminalising polygamy may be one way to stop forced marriage.
First sentence of that article: "Adultery ... is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than their spouse or spouses"
What's your point? If Christians consider adultery a sin, the solution for a "sin-averse religious polygamist" is to have multiple spouses.
The monogamist Romans fed Christians to lions for entertainment for hundreds of years and they had to hold religious meetings literally underground and in secret. My point is that the Roman moral of monogamy became a Christian one as the Roman elite converted to Christianity. The idea of the secular Western state being essentially based on the Roman state has possibly led to the strength of monogamy and its status in law for hundreds of years. To me it makes more sense than "them damn Christians" as an argument, especially given that I have established earlier that polygamy should not be a problem for any of the Abrahamic faiths had they developed in a vacuum.Let's not forget the Catholic domination of Rome. All those religions are rather interconnected, same with the basic morals.
Choosing to spend your life whilst being faithful to someone shouldn't be a complex issue. If you cant control your urges then don't make commitments that you cant keep. Its really simple. We are human, we can control are urges and we can make decisions. We are different to animals in the wild. We dont rape others, we dont kill others, we dont steal from others, not without consequence. Why should this be so difficult? The world isn't designed to bring the human race down, its designed to keep it thriving. Monogomy is good for the economy (which is good for you) and proven in long term to be great for ones longevity (low risk of STI, etc).
As I said, I'm not referring to polygamy as purely marriage based. Being intimate with other people, etc. Even so, polygamy IS considered a sin, so either way, sinsinsin.
Which monogamous Romans? The same ones with all the mistresses (...and young boys) they could ever want? As I said before, I'm not referring to polygamy and monogamy in pure marriage based ideas. Someone married to one person, yet ****ing a mistress is engaging in a form of polygamy. The idea to expunge all forms of polygamy (from having sex with other people to having multiple spouses) seems to be a recent trend inspired by the church.The monogamist Romans fed Christians to lions for entertainment for hundreds of years and they had to hold religious meetings literally underground and in secret. My point is that the Roman moral of monogamy became a Christian one as the Roman elite converted to Christianity. The idea of the secular Western state being essentially based on the Roman state has possibly led to the strength of monogamy and its status in law for hundreds of years. To me it makes more sense than "them damn Christians" as an argument, especially given that I have established earlier that polygamy should not be a problem for any of the Abrahamic faiths had they developed in a vacuum.
You can be faithful to someone and have sex with other people, if it's part of your relationship, you're not breaking any kind of promise
Also, by your logic, we should all remain single and celibate, it's even BETTER economically and it's hard to get an STI from your hand...unless you're Ashley Olsen.
Ive never understood the purpose of getting married if you intend to have sex with other people. Its redundant.
I've just never understood the purpose of marriage outside of a religion, other than whatever the **** the taxation benefits would be. Don't forget, plenty of people get married just for the benefits, specifically to become a citizen.
It's like christmas. Its still celebrated, just not for religious reasons. Thanks to idiocy of a certain law, marriage (a religious institution) being legally recognized now must also be a secular ceremony that is performed by a celebrant because of society shoving the idea down our throats. Tax benefits so on and so fourth, but I'd like to think my love extends beyond a piece of paper, but that to which I would happily give my gf the wedding she deserves.
Last edited by Rowan; 07-14-2013 at 08:22 PM.
Exactly, love is far more important than a piece of paper, you already have everything you need or want, what does a marriage add? LEGAL reasons not to be unfaithful? I understand celebrating your love and all that, but don't you already do that every day?
Chalk it upto tradition.
Marriage is commitment, not just a mere ritual or tradition. It's to show you really mean to be with someone and are willing to go through all ups and downs to share the future together despite any hardships that you'll face. It's always easy to not marry and quit whenever you want, but it's hard to be married and stay together, even when things go bad. Marriage forces people to be more mature and serious and not just fool around with life. It builds character, strength as well as tolerance to others. Marriage is good and that's that.
Why can't you do all of that without going through a marriage? Pretty much every long term relationship goes by those same commitments.
Difference is that long term relationships are just long term. Then the term is up and that's it. Marriage makes you think more about how long you want to commit yourself and there're more penalties for ditching the relationship, so you have to be more serious.
Id hate to think just because im not married that im not taking my girlfriend seriously. Some people live together in serious relationships and never get married. Marriage doesn't enhance a relationship. The proof being that 50% of marriages end in divorce. I pulled that statistic from an average I researched from Australia, the U.K and U.S.A averaging around that mark.
I agree. Marriage isn't really needed, but it can make help you evaluate, if you're unsure about your relationship.
So what about about monogamy vs polygamy? Isn't this what OP wanted to discuss in the first place?
Idk, if you're unsure, marriage is the last thing you should want, but if you mean test if the idea isn't appealing, that's one way to look at it, but why go through with it? It's just as easy to be with someone for ever without marrying them.
Also, yeah, we're off topic lol
Just check my OP and the rest of the thread, I'm not specifying monogamy as just marriage based, i mean 2 people in a relationship, be it just sexual or otherwise.
Polygamy is better. No matter how attractive your partner is, there'll always be a time when you'll want someone else. It's wrong in a way, but it's just how we are designed physiologically. Some say it's betrayal, blah blah, but in the end it's sex and it's just like food. You gotta change the dish at times. Best to change it without getting caught though.
Disagree entirely. I'm pretty sure we are also psychologically programmed to want what is ours, and I wouldn't want my gf screwing someone else. Treat others how you wish to be treated is a virtue to be valued... Unless you're a sado-masochist or something.
We're psychologically programmed to do many irrational things, especially when it comes to such envious traits.
What if you and your girlfriend both agreed that you are attracted to other people in addition to each other? Sexual attraction is pretty fluid, and there is no 'normal', just a 'majority'. A majority of people, I think, would find it difficult to accept their partner being attracted to multiple people simultaneously.
Personally I have no problem with other people being polygamous. The state shouldn't be in the business of telling me the best way to arrange a household or sexual relationships. But if my girlfriend suddenly became polygamous I wouldn't be very pleased. I'm attracted to her in emotional exclusivity partly because that feeling is reciprocated.
If both partners consent that they are OK with arranging their relationship like that, I don't see the issue. I don't think there are many places in the world where co-habitation itself is illegal (so OP, that's why I focussed on marriage, because you can already co-habit with multiple sexual partners if you fancy it). However as I explained earlier, the statute books assume a monogamous couple participates in marriage. Changing this to a wider interpretation would be pretty revolutionary, and would take a good while trying to pull out what works well from those countries that do allow it and then to make it gel with Western cultural norms surrounding monogamous marriage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks