FabSwingers.com > Forums > Ireland > Anthropology and polyamory
Anthropology and polyamory
Jump to: Newest in thread
Im reading an anthropological-psychological-historical overview of the shaping of the western mindset/culture ‘The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous’ by Joseph Henrich.
One of the key arguments is that humans the world over are generally polygamous and that left to their own devices both men and women generally prefer this set up. Men have more partners, women attach to more powerful/attractive men… Western monogamy is presented as a ‘weird’ outliner emerging out of the growth Christian belief… thing is the book claims that this gave the West a massive society-based advantage. With high status men more likely to focus energy on existing families (as opposed to looking for more partners) and lower status men more likely to gain partners (and have stake in the future through that family)…
So if you read this far interested in any fabber thoughts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Have you read Sex at Dawn. A great examination of human sexual behaviour. We're not that different from Bonobos. Western society has been shaped by christian morality, and often our constitution and laws are shaped by this influence. Has it been successful? Islamic societies which permit multiple wives, are equally successful. Despite, societal interference, the mating gene will ensure the survival of the species. High value men will attract the healthiest, most fertile(young) women, and women are attracted to high value men for safety, security, satisfaction, and protection.
Esther Perel speaks on this on her podcasts.
Also, Mating in Captivity, a great read.
They could be writing about any swinging site, where the mating game is played out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yeah, we as a society are trapped by the societal 'norm' that monogamy is good and non-monogamy is bad and this applies especially to committed couples. Singles fortunately are no longer judged in the same way.
This is why swinging couples have to be so discreet. I have seen how people are judged in society when they are outted.
It will change but not in our or even our children's lifetime. I find it very sad  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *1CorkCouple 50 weeks ago
Cork |
It appears to us that there is nothing more subversive to society than the idea of couples engaging in consensual group sex scenarios.
In our lifetime, society has accepted divorce, promiscuity amongst singles (men first, more recently women), gay marriage, transgenderism (very recently), and is currently flirting with acceptance of throuples… however we cannot see swinging ever following into acceptance. Perhaps a more threatening concept to any of the religious foundations than other social advances? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
I think a lot of our norms came from values that were promoted during the Victorian period, nearly always based on strict religious beliefs and 150 years later we are still restrained by them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
I spoke with a male half of a polygamous relationship, both he and his wife each had another full time partner. He spoke of his 2 mother in laws who all know about their lifestyle choice. His wife had met his girlfriend and his adult children also knew of the open relationship and all family members accepted it.
He is also interested in sleeping with me, no secrets from either of his full time partners. However they didn't all have sex together in a group setting, which seemed like the next step to me.
He told me how he and his wife really deeply considered the impact on the children and the secrecy and eventually when they found out they were accepting but thought the parents were hypocritical for leading this double life, when they wanted their children to be transparent.
I think group sex is considered quite normal for many 20 something year olds. I think polygamy will be normalised in the next 20 years, marriage rates will drop and open relationships and situationships will increase, that's my prediction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you read Sex at Dawn. A great examination of human sexual behaviour. We're not that different from Bonobos. Western society has been shaped by christian morality, and often our constitution and laws are shaped by this influence. Has it been successful? Islamic societies which permit multiple wives, are equally successful. Despite, societal interference, the mating gene will ensure the survival of the species. High value men will attract the healthiest, most fertile(young) women, and women are attracted to high value men for safety, security, satisfaction, and protection.
Esther Perel speaks on this on her podcasts.
Also, Mating in Captivity, a great read.
They could be writing about any swinging site, where the mating game is played out. "
Thanks for the references… sound good, and reading that text brought Fab straight to mind. Like an digital version of the same reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It appears to us that there is nothing more subversive to society than the idea of couples engaging in consensual group sex scenarios.
In our lifetime, society has accepted divorce, promiscuity amongst singles (men first, more recently women), gay marriage, transgenderism (very recently), and is currently flirting with acceptance of throuples… however we cannot see swinging ever following into acceptance. Perhaps a more threatening concept to any of the religious foundations than other social advances?"
Very interesting… this book would suggest it would be a bad thing if widely accepted (not taking a view myself to be clear)… the claim would be there would be more unattached, angry, disenfranchised males wandering around with no stake in the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I think group sex is considered quite normal for many 20 something year olds. I think polygamy will be normalised in the next 20 years, marriage rates will drop and open relationships and situationships will increase, that's my prediction. "
I think your right. I get that sense too… I think here is one of the epicentres of the weak signals of change…
Re the story, Fascinating how this stuff plays out for people and society has such an impact… good the family were accepting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aseylee324Couple 50 weeks ago
Valley of Squinting Windows |
"It appears to us that there is nothing more subversive to society than the idea of couples engaging in consensual group sex scenarios.
In our lifetime, society has accepted divorce, promiscuity amongst singles (men first, more recently women), gay marriage, transgenderism (very recently), and is currently flirting with acceptance of throuples… however we cannot see swinging ever following into acceptance. Perhaps a more threatening concept to any of the religious foundations than other social advances?
Very interesting… this book would suggest it would be a bad thing if widely accepted (not taking a view myself to be clear)… the claim would be there would be more unattached, angry, disenfranchised males wandering around with no stake in the future."
This phenomenon already exists - the incel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"You're unlikely to get a balanced debate on this subject on a site promoting non-monogamy btw  "
Absolutely. It's not a one shoe fits all and upholding a monogamous relationship has without many advantages for society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're unlikely to get a balanced debate on this subject on a site promoting non-monogamy btw
Absolutely. It's not a one shoe fits all and upholding a monogamous relationship has without many advantages for society. "
There is definitely a benefit to society to having strong relationships and a family unit. However it doesn't need to be strictly monogamous.
I think that's where swinging comes in.
Many here are already in solid relationships, committed parents. But would have no interest whatsoever in Pologamy! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As an atheist some of my favourite bits of the Bible are the Polygamy parts. Their existence REALLY seems to wind up the fundamentalist Christians. Which is weird as they like to interpret the bible as the literal word of god (except when its inconvenient to do so). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
The only thing about the polyamoury is, it must be very time consuming and mentally consuming, being the romantic other half of more than one person, even expensive.
X2 datenights/ nights out.
Seperate homes being financed.
Competing emotional demands from each partner.
Always being available for more partners, so all existing resources potentially being diluted further.
I think I personally prefer either:
1. Completely independent, single and free to mingle or
2. One primary partner and then maybe open to casual others, but very little commitment to those others. Always prioritising your number one.
I m not sure if I buy the concept of the Alpha male with his hareem of women competing for the alpha man and all the p1ssed off eunochs bumbling around. That doesn't account for the ladies with the roving eye who enjoy diversity.
I think you need committed couples for early parenting, focus for those early heavy duty parenting years, and then I think it's quite normal for couples to start regaining their sexual prowess and to start looking for a thrill. Each person's libido fluctuating depending on life s demands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
Or more correctly, ideally, you need very committed co parenting, which often includes some emotional support for the other parent when children are young.
Not impossible to date or swing in those early years, but plenty of challenges and competing demands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"Im reading an anthropological-psychological-historical overview of the shaping of the western mindset/culture ‘The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous’ by Joseph Henrich.
One of the key arguments is that humans the world over are generally polygamous and that left to their own devices both men and women generally prefer this set up. Men have more partners, women attach to more powerful/attractive men… Western monogamy is presented as a ‘weird’ outliner emerging out of the growth Christian belief… thing is the book claims that this gave the West a massive society-based advantage. With high status men more likely to focus energy on existing families (as opposed to looking for more partners) and lower status men more likely to gain partners (and have stake in the future through that family)…
So if you read this far interested in any fabber thoughts."
Higher status men Vs. Lower status men.
What about women? Is their status defined by who do you meet? Societal creepy standards….
I’d suggest Professor Robert Sapolsky’s research for sexual behaviour. he is atheist too  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
I’m fascinated by this discussion, as polyamory is something I’m very new to, but currently enjoying. Thanks for the literary recommendations, will definitely look them up! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im reading an anthropological-psychological-historical overview of the shaping of the western mindset/culture ‘The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous’ by Joseph Henrich.
One of the key arguments is that humans the world over are generally polygamous and that left to their own devices both men and women generally prefer this set up. Men have more partners, women attach to more powerful/attractive men… Western monogamy is presented as a ‘weird’ outliner emerging out of the growth Christian belief… thing is the book claims that this gave the West a massive society-based advantage. With high status men more likely to focus energy on existing families (as opposed to looking for more partners) and lower status men more likely to gain partners (and have stake in the future through that family)…
So if you read this far interested in any fabber thoughts.
Higher status men Vs. Lower status men.
What about women? Is their status defined by who do you meet? Societal creepy standards….
I’d suggest Professor Robert Sapolsky’s research for sexual behaviour. he is atheist too "
Yeah, get you! Its assuming male power dominates. The claim would be that this has been true in many historic cases. I didn’t represent it but there is a discussion of female power and status too. The whole premise here is based on reproductive capacity. Men don’t have to physically/physiologically invest much effort in contributing to reproduction. Females do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only thing about the polyamoury is, it must be very time consuming and mentally consuming, being the romantic other half of more than one person, even expensive.
X2 datenights/ nights out.
Seperate homes being financed.
Competing emotional demands from each partner.
Always being available for more partners, so all existing resources potentially being diluted further.
I think I personally prefer either:
1. Completely independent, single and free to mingle or
2. One primary partner and then maybe open to casual others, but very little commitment to those others. Always prioritising your number one.
I m not sure if I buy the concept of the Alpha male with his hareem of women competing for the alpha man and all the p1ssed off eunochs bumbling around. That doesn't account for the ladies with the roving eye who enjoy diversity.
I think you need committed couples for early parenting, focus for those early heavy duty parenting years, and then I think it's quite normal for couples to start regaining their sexual prowess and to start looking for a thrill. Each person's libido fluctuating depending on life s demands. "
I've some experience here and you cover some of the issues very well. Having two love-partners at the same time is a very difficult thing to balance. Are both partners equal or is there a primary? Is the secondary partner ok with being second fiddle for their primary partner? What happens when time alone? Does everyone share or bed or does someone sleep alone? Does one duo get to be married and the other not? What happens with children? If there are kids by the secondary partner then are the kids secondary also? There are many practical issues around tax/inheritance/pensions/mortgages/life insurance. Not to mention the obvious issues about jeasousy. It's a fucking minefield. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Love this thread. Has anyone listened to a podcast called Normalizing Non Manogomy. It's really good they interview all different types of people. Interesting to me is the amount of people that have came from a deeply religious (American mostly) backgrounds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Lots of problems with the assumption that womens natural state is for us to get such a raw deal being owned by a "powerful" man. Have you forgotten the entire history of women's oppression?
Wishful thinking tends to lead many men to call this "natural".
A patriarchal world view, force, coercion and violence have always been at the root of this polygamous arrangement, not nature. Women did not freely choose that.
You can go back through all records of women writing about their lives, and you would find that women have always been very dissatisfied with their lower status and limited options.
Women did what they had to to survive in a world that made it very hard for them to do so independently.
Nowadays, women have far more choice and economic autonomy. We're seeing later marriages, more sexual partners, and sadly a rise on lonely men as women aren't settling for dissatisfaction like they used to.
I think it's very telling that women's wants were never all that different.
And many have called this autonomy and sexual freedom "female hypergamy" and linked it to the "downfall of western civilisation" (lol).
One of the fascinating things about the swinging scenes is that gender politics shape men's and women's experiences in hugely different ways.
I have found the women tends to be very liberal, feminist minded people, because we are all shedding a history of shame and control of our sexualities in order to enjoy and participate in the scene.
Whereas there are still a number of conservative men in the midst, who do actually endorse culturally enforced monogamy as touted by the likes of Jordan Peterson. The difference for many of them is that see women as being separated into groups for relationship material, and then what some unfortunately call "recreational use". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lots of problems with the assumption that womens natural state is for us to get such a raw deal being owned by a "powerful" man. "
Get you and see the issue. The book would agree but suggests that when we don’t live with the support structures provided by being in Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic (what it shortens to WEIRD because were an outliner) societies this pattern tends to emerge in societal formation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aseylee324Couple 50 weeks ago
Valley of Squinting Windows |
"The only thing about the polyamoury is, it must be very time consuming and mentally consuming, being the romantic other half of more than one person, even expensive.
X2 datenights/ nights out.
Seperate homes being financed.
Competing emotional demands from each partner.
Always being available for more partners, so all existing resources potentially being diluted further.
I think I personally prefer either:
1. Completely independent, single and free to mingle or
2. One primary partner and then maybe open to casual others, but very little commitment to those others. Always prioritising your number one.
I m not sure if I buy the concept of the Alpha male with his hareem of women competing for the alpha man and all the p1ssed off eunochs bumbling around. That doesn't account for the ladies with the roving eye who enjoy diversity.
I think you need committed couples for early parenting, focus for those early heavy duty parenting years, and then I think it's quite normal for couples to start regaining their sexual prowess and to start looking for a thrill. Each person's libido fluctuating depending on life s demands. "
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aseylee324Couple 50 weeks ago
Valley of Squinting Windows |
"Lots of problems with the assumption that womens natural state is for us to get such a raw deal being owned by a "powerful" man.
Get you and see the issue. The book would agree but suggests that when we don’t live with the support structures provided by being in Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic (what it shortens to WEIRD because were an outliner) societies this pattern tends to emerge in societal formation. "
Indeed, great for those supposedly "high value" men, not so much for others perhaps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aseylee324Couple 50 weeks ago
Valley of Squinting Windows |
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!"
Twice the expense on Wednesday!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!"
It sounds tiring more than anything. Everything I know about poly life revolves around talking. Lots of talking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!
It sounds tiring more than anything. Everything I know about poly life revolves around talking. Lots of talking."
Would be hard enough with just three people, imagine throwing in a handful of kids as well!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anUTV/TS 50 weeks ago
Rural |
I am one of those people who is happy out being free and single.
I'm quite stoic and in touch with my masculine and feminine side, although lately I'm starting to feel the draw of my masculine nature and thinking of giving my cross dressing side a break and going back to being just a single guy.
My mindset is very pagan and earthy, I don't identify with the Abrahamic Christian mind set at all, settling down and being in a relationship and married wouldn't suit my nomadic nature.
Having a few partners to me would be an absolute nightmare, I admire those who can manage that lifestyle.
Too much responsibility for me, give me valley's lakes Rivers and seashores any day, and surfboards bodyboard and fishing gear...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!
Twice the expense on Wednesday!!"
People still subscribe to that commercial shite?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aseylee324Couple 50 weeks ago
Valley of Squinting Windows |
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!
Twice the expense on Wednesday!!
People still subscribe to that commercial shite? "
Clearly they do or it wouldn't be everywhere!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!
Twice the expense on Wednesday!!
People still subscribe to that commercial shite?
Clearly they do or it wouldn't be everywhere!!"
I think single people do, couples not so much.
I might send a card, I ll be the secret admirer..... Lols. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *og-ManMan 50 weeks ago
somewhere |
"
I tend to agree, especially with the part where polyamory sounds like hard work!
I don't see the attraction to it at all. It sounds like a nightmare of a situation, really!
Twice the expense on Wednesday!!
People still subscribe to that commercial shite?
Clearly they do or it wouldn't be everywhere!!"
I thought the comment was aimed towards childrens allowance day on Wednesday when expense was mentioned |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *panishRebelMan 50 weeks ago
Alicante Spain, and Cork City Ireland |
"Lots of problems with the assumption that womens natural state is for us to get such a raw deal being owned by a "powerful" man. Have you forgotten the entire history of women's oppression?
Wishful thinking tends to lead many men to call this "natural".
A patriarchal world view, force, coercion and violence have always been at the root of this polygamous arrangement, not nature. Women did not freely choose that.
You can go back through all records of women writing about their lives, and you would find that women have always been very dissatisfied with their lower status and limited options.
Women did what they had to to survive in a world that made it very hard for them to do so independently.
Nowadays, women have far more choice and economic autonomy. We're seeing later marriages, more sexual partners, and sadly a rise on lonely men as women aren't settling for dissatisfaction like they used to.
I think it's very telling that women's wants were never all that different.
And many have called this autonomy and sexual freedom "female hypergamy" and linked it to the "downfall of western civilisation" (lol).
One of the fascinating things about the swinging scenes is that gender politics shape men's and women's experiences in hugely different ways.
I have found the women tends to be very liberal, feminist minded people, because we are all shedding a history of shame and control of our sexualities in order to enjoy and participate in the scene.
Whereas there are still a number of conservative men in the midst, who do actually endorse culturally enforced monogamy as touted by the likes of Jordan Peterson. The difference for many of them is that see women as being separated into groups for relationship material, and then what some unfortunately call "recreational use". "
Have to agree with a lot of this....even though I think on the connection between my parents for example was fantastic. There was a lot of old school but somehow a lot of freedom too.
I think the biggest problem is with anyone regardless of spectrum, trying to control others and thinking that because they know best they should be in charge.... and it doesn't matter if they do or don't know best because they just care about themselves and being right. They then try to control everyone and fit everything into their view point and structure of being. So whether a patriarchal or a matriarchal set up, a poly or monogramous set up, mutual respect and equality is key. Based not on position, talent, money or power, but just the fact of being alive and a fellow living being.
Lots of references above I haven't read, and think I will, when time allows.
As to the Jordan Pieterson reference, I wish nobody got caught in his web, but as a living being, he deserves respect even if I detest his outlooks.
Noam Chomsky said it well — 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.'
Yep it's late here in Spain and my mind is rambling.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
