FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Why does society push monogamy?
Why does society push monogamy?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ole.24601 OP Man 31 weeks ago
Sutton Coldfield |
"I think monogamy suits a lot of people but because it's been considered the norm for so long anything outside of it is viewed with suspicion.
That and the lizard people like it"
Haha, it does seem like such an obvious lie biologically when you think about it. Yet people still feel that they have to play the game for fear of losing jobs, reputations etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think monogamy suits a lot of people but because it's been considered the norm for so long anything outside of it is viewed with suspicion.
That and the lizard people like it
Haha, it does seem like such an obvious lie biologically when you think about it. Yet people still feel that they have to play the game for fear of losing jobs, reputations etc.
"
I know quite a lot of happily monogamous couples. I wish it could become acceptable to live within the relationship style that suited the people within it. It would make it much easier for someone to say from the start what they wanted and avoid a lot of heartache further down the line.
We should put this to the lizard people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It was the accepted norm for an eternity.
Some people are naturally and inherently more inclined to monogamy. Some of us aren't.
There's the theory that it helped to stop the spread of disease back before we had antibiotics, marriage and fidelity helped prevent entire communities succumbing to unpleasant disease transmitted in more intimate ways.
The imperative to breed and raise offspring. While it can be done solo or within a polycule it has always been viewed as the stronger unit to raise another human is with one male and one female role model to parent them.
There are probably a thousand different reasons that could be justifiably argued. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onjudgesCouple (MM) 31 weeks ago
Carlisle |
"It was the accepted norm for an eternity.
Some people are naturally and inherently more inclined to monogamy. Some of us aren't.
There's the theory that it helped to stop the spread of disease back before we had antibiotics, marriage and fidelity helped prevent entire communities succumbing to unpleasant disease transmitted in more intimate ways.
The imperative to breed and raise offspring. While it can be done solo or within a polycule it has always been viewed as the stronger unit to raise another human is with one male and one female role model to parent them.
There are probably a thousand different reasons that could be justifiably argued."
Succinctly put. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women. "
Good lord. It is far too late on a school night for the level of eyeroll that particular made up stat summons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ole.24601 OP Man 31 weeks ago
Sutton Coldfield |
"It was the accepted norm for an eternity.
Some people are naturally and inherently more inclined to monogamy. Some of us aren't.
There's the theory that it helped to stop the spread of disease back before we had antibiotics, marriage and fidelity helped prevent entire communities succumbing to unpleasant disease transmitted in more intimate ways.
The imperative to breed and raise offspring. While it can be done solo or within a polycule it has always been viewed as the stronger unit to raise another human is with one male and one female role model to parent them.
There are probably a thousand different reasons that could be justifiably argued."
In the earliest human civilisations? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was the accepted norm for an eternity.
Some people are naturally and inherently more inclined to monogamy. Some of us aren't.
There's the theory that it helped to stop the spread of disease back before we had antibiotics, marriage and fidelity helped prevent entire communities succumbing to unpleasant disease transmitted in more intimate ways.
The imperative to breed and raise offspring. While it can be done solo or within a polycule it has always been viewed as the stronger unit to raise another human is with one male and one female role model to parent them.
There are probably a thousand different reasons that could be justifiably argued.
In the earliest human civilisations? "
No idea. I haven't studied the remains or findings, and odds are we could only ever guess how they lived, but historians to date coming from the heteronormative standard would likely have interpreted them that way with the aid of a little confirmation bias. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
Good lord. It is far too late on a school night for the level of eyeroll that particular made up stat summons."
Online dating, with its someone emotional disconnected nature, gives a relatively good hypothetical keyhole into such a society. It'd end up with a lot of disenfranchised people, effectively.
It also depends on how egalitarian you are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onjudgesCouple (MM) 31 weeks ago
Carlisle |
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
Good lord. It is far too late on a school night for the level of eyeroll that particular made up stat summons.
Online dating, with its someone emotional disconnected nature, gives a relatively good hypothetical keyhole into such a society. It'd end up with a lot of disenfranchised people, effectively.
It also depends on how egalitarian you are. "
The advent of social media has definitely altered the dynamic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
I’ve asked myself this a million times.
I am of the belief that monogamy made sense in a world where the average lifespan was 30-40 years.
I try to view it from the point of view of monogamy in terms of marriage and the idea of “one person for the rest of your life”. In seeing it that way, I am led to believe that monogamy made sense in a period where you may have met your one person in your mid teens to early 20s, and would still be getting to know them until your eventual death. It could be 10 years, it could be upwards of 20 years. Knowing this, you’d be compelled to not miss out on any time with that one person for a short eternity.
I realise this has loads of loopholes.
How do you explain concubines before the 29th century? Well, I think there must have been a social class difference whereas laypeople were expected to be monogamous and the noble were allowed gluttony in all aspects of life including partners and this concubines were legally and morally acceptable in societies.
With medical advancements that led to massive improvements in lifespans, I feel the idea of having one person who can always be on the same page as you and your needs, etc. for a prolonged period of time, who is your one and only, started to show cracks in what was socially accepted as a norm — monogamy. Not enough for the majority to go away from monogamy mind.
What I cannot fathom is how one thing that’s not changed throughout this time has never affected the majority view of monogamy. This being, parents of multiple children and how society views them in terms of love. Albeit, not romantic love of course. They aren’t expected to love one child any less than others but are expected to increase the love in their heart across any children they may have beyond one. If we as a species have the capacity to love — again not romantically in this case — more than one person, why couldn’t we romantically love more than one person and not have this be considered outside of normalcy? Does one need to have love and only romantic love for monogamy to function? Surely not. What would happen if society saw the opportunity romantic relationships as something that “takes a village” too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ole.24601 OP Man 31 weeks ago
Sutton Coldfield |
"I’ve asked myself this a million times.
I am of the belief that monogamy made sense in a world where the average lifespan was 30-40 years.
I try to view it from the point of view of monogamy in terms of marriage and the idea of “one person for the rest of your life”. In seeing it that way, I am led to believe that monogamy made sense in a period where you may have met your one person in your mid teens to early 20s, and would still be getting to know them until your eventual death. It could be 10 years, it could be upwards of 20 years. Knowing this, you’d be compelled to not miss out on any time with that one person for a short eternity.
I realise this has loads of loopholes.
How do you explain concubines before the 29th century? Well, I think there must have been a social class difference whereas laypeople were expected to be monogamous and the noble were allowed gluttony in all aspects of life including partners and this concubines were legally and morally acceptable in societies.
With medical advancements that led to massive improvements in lifespans, I feel the idea of having one person who can always be on the same page as you and your needs, etc. for a prolonged period of time, who is your one and only, started to show cracks in what was socially accepted as a norm — monogamy. Not enough for the majority to go away from monogamy mind.
What I cannot fathom is how one thing that’s not changed throughout this time has never affected the majority view of monogamy. This being, parents of multiple children and how society views them in terms of love. Albeit, not romantic love of course. They aren’t expected to love one child any less than others but are expected to increase the love in their heart across any children they may have beyond one. If we as a species have the capacity to love — again not romantically in this case — more than one person, why couldn’t we romantically love more than one person and not have this be considered outside of normalcy? Does one need to have love and only romantic love for monogamy to function? Surely not. What would happen if society saw the opportunity romantic relationships as something that “takes a village” too? "
Love this response |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women. "
There was an interesting article in New Scientist 2003 - That it's believed that up until 10,000 years ago there were indeed only a certain percentage of males who were having offspring with all the females. So in theory at that point, in that society the figure of around 20% wouldn't be that wrong. In other historical poly cultures it's often been only those males who can afford to support numerous female partners who have been able to sustain that dynamic.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ole.24601 OP Man 31 weeks ago
Sutton Coldfield |
"Would anyone agree that modern views on remaining monogamous are rooted in our propensity to be jealous? "
I think that the human nature of envy is a huge hindrance to widespread acceptance of polyamory.
But again it’s whether it is a human trait for survival that is too hard wired to overcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ole.24601 OP Man 31 weeks ago
Sutton Coldfield |
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
There was an interesting article in New Scientist 2003 - That it's believed that up until 10,000 years ago there were indeed only a certain percentage of males who were having offspring with all the females. So in theory at that point, in that society the figure of around 20% wouldn't be that wrong. In other historical poly cultures it's often been only those males who can afford to support numerous female partners who have been able to sustain that dynamic.
"
Does this then more closely resemble a primate society like chimpanzees where provider / protector alpha types get the majority of mating rights |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
There was an interesting article in New Scientist 2003 - That it's believed that up until 10,000 years ago there were indeed only a certain percentage of males who were having offspring with all the females. So in theory at that point, in that society the figure of around 20% wouldn't be that wrong. In other historical poly cultures it's often been only those males who can afford to support numerous female partners who have been able to sustain that dynamic.
Does this then more closely resemble a primate society like chimpanzees where provider / protector alpha types get the majority of mating rights "
With everyone free to have multiple partners, there would likely be increased competition for desirable mates. This could lead to heightened conflict, jealousy, and social instability as people vie for the most attractive and high-status partners.
Economically and socially, challenges for child-rearing, resource allocation, and emotional bonds within families would be evident.
Outside of this particular community; unbridled egalitarian polygamy (where both men and women can have multiple partners) isn't the utopia that many may think it is.
Monogamy works out in the longer term, because its a simpler social structure to uphold in the long term as societies become more complex. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Would anyone agree that modern views on remaining monogamous are rooted in our propensity to be jealous? "
Jealousy is something interesting. I cannot say I understand jealousy but from my attempts of understanding the root cause of jealousy I’ve come away with the thought that jealousy is derived in not having effective communication. When one person doesn’t know where they “stand” with another, they feel jealous of others’ “standing with that person and that causes jealousy.
I cannot see how monogamy would solve jealousy. If anything telling someone they cannot have any other loves would stifle the human ability of being social creatures.
I do see monogamy being rooted in the idea of ownership of others. As in, if two people are in a monogamous relationship then those two people are off limits to others. It leads me to think of historical views of women as property of men. Which then makes me question if monogamy was expect of women only or equally of men and women. This also makes me question, the view in some societies where men having affairs may be looked at as an expected male tendency whereas women having affairs is seen as slag behaviour. I’m not debating the morality of affairs in this view but simply questioning monogamy in terms of how it was applied in society at its onset. Was it expected of all or was it weaponised against women in some way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Would anyone agree that modern views on remaining monogamous are rooted in our propensity to be jealous?
Jealousy is something interesting. I cannot say I understand jealousy but from my attempts of understanding the root cause of jealousy I’ve come away with the thought that jealousy is derived in not having effective communication. When one person doesn’t know where they “stand” with another, they feel jealous of others’ “standing with that person and that causes jealousy.
I cannot see how monogamy would solve jealousy. If anything telling someone they cannot have any other loves would stifle the human ability of being social creatures.
I do see monogamy being rooted in the idea of ownership of others. As in, if two people are in a monogamous relationship then those two people are off limits to others. It leads me to think of historical views of women as property of men. Which then makes me question if monogamy was expect of women only or equally of men and women. This also makes me question, the view in some societies where men having affairs may be looked at as an expected male tendency whereas women having affairs is seen as slag behaviour. I’m not debating the morality of affairs in this view but simply questioning monogamy in terms of how it was applied in society at its onset. Was it expected of all or was it weaponised against women in some way? "
I think it's less nefarious than that. Biologicaly speaking in that women have more to lose than men before the availability of the pill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"
I think it's less nefarious than that. Biologicaly speaking in that women have more to lose than men before the availability of the pill."
I’ve heard that argument.
Yes, pregnancy is one issue women have to contend with whereas men don’t but any person being penetrated rather than penetrating has more to lose regardless of pregnancy prevention methods. That hasn’t changed which is where I start questioning the view of monogamy across the gender expectations.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With everyone free to have multiple partners, there would likely be increased competition for desirable mates. This could lead to heightened conflict, jealousy, and social instability as people vie for the most attractive and high-status partners."
But without the mindsets of jealousy and competition, what's the problem?
I don't compete with my partner's wife. I don't love one partner less because another is doing a better job at peacocking or whatever.
Status and wealth matter in a mate when looking to build a stable monogamous nuclear family with a stay at home parent and all that jazz. Not when people prioritise their own independence.
Attractiveness is subjective.
I'd say I find a lot less than 20% of men remotely attractive. But that ones I'm drawn to aren't often the ones drowning in offers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I think it's less nefarious than that. Biologicaly speaking in that women have more to lose than men before the availability of the pill.
I’ve heard that argument.
Yes, pregnancy is one issue women have to contend with whereas men don’t but any person being penetrated rather than penetrating has more to lose regardless of pregnancy prevention methods. That hasn’t changed which is where I start questioning the view of monogamy across the gender expectations.
"
Well Polyandry has never been very popular. So I think poly relationships have historically always been very skewed in the favour of males anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"With everyone free to have multiple partners, there would likely be increased competition for desirable mates. This could lead to heightened conflict, jealousy, and social instability as people vie for the most attractive and high-status partners.
But without the mindsets of jealousy and competition, what's the problem?
I don't compete with my partner's wife. I don't love one partner less because another is doing a better job at peacocking or whatever.
Status and wealth matter in a mate when looking to build a stable monogamous nuclear family with a stay at home parent and all that jazz. Not when people prioritise their own independence.
Attractiveness is subjective.
I'd say I find a lot less than 20% of men remotely attractive. But that ones I'm drawn to aren't often the ones drowning in offers."
Just to be clear; my point of view comes from the idea of society being widely polygamous over the value of monogamy. So, in isolation, if it works for you, then that's absolutely within your rights to have that conclusion and I wouldn't argue against your own natural inclination.
My point of view was coming from the idea of a society wide shift to polygamy. I wasn't arguing polygamy as a moral failing or anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't know that I agree that society 'pushes' monogamy
I think managing one close romantic relationship at a time is what many folks have capacity for and anything more would leave them stretched thin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Everything about society has been built on a religious background, the first laws were the 10 commandments. It’s only as we progress as society and move away from a religious way of thinking and more into a free thinking society, that people start to make their own judgement on how they should or shouldn’t behave.
The mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Everything about society has been built on a religious background, the first laws were the 10 commandments. It’s only as we progress as society and move away from a religious way of thinking and more into a free thinking society, that people start to make their own judgement on how they should or shouldn’t behave.
The mr "
Something like this. Religion is the basis for almost all our social norms across the world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Everything about society has been built on a religious background, the first laws were the 10 commandments. It’s only as we progress as society and move away from a religious way of thinking and more into a free thinking society, that people start to make their own judgement on how they should or shouldn’t behave.
The mr "
… and religious rules encapsulated societal norms / expectations. Religion didn’t just appear one day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man 31 weeks ago
Dorchester |
"Any thoughts on this?
I have heard theories from ownership and property to survival and security of offspring, anybody have any other thoughts on this?
(Light hearted conspiracy theories welcome)"
Soley to do with the family unit mum dad and siblings, else we would all be running around like headless chickens seaking shrinks with issues, the fact it doesn't work anymore is down to humans and how disfunctional they've become. Identity issues etc  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
There was an interesting article in New Scientist 2003 - That it's believed that up until 10,000 years ago there were indeed only a certain percentage of males who were having offspring with all the females. So in theory at that point, in that society the figure of around 20% wouldn't be that wrong. In other historical poly cultures it's often been only those males who can afford to support numerous female partners who have been able to sustain that dynamic.
Does this then more closely resemble a primate society like chimpanzees where provider / protector alpha types get the majority of mating rights
With everyone free to have multiple partners, there would likely be increased competition for desirable mates. This could lead to heightened conflict, jealousy, and social instability as people vie for the most attractive and high-status partners.
Economically and socially, challenges for child-rearing, resource allocation, and emotional bonds within families would be evident.
Outside of this particular community; unbridled egalitarian polygamy (where both men and women can have multiple partners) isn't the utopia that many may think it is.
Monogamy works out in the longer term, because its a simpler social structure to uphold in the long term as societies become more complex. "
This is a complete fallacy. People find all sorts of aspects and people attractive, also in a society where people respect and have compersion for their partners, there would be people sharing not jealousy.
All of your comments are rather manosphere and a touch toxic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With everyone free to have multiple partners, there would likely be increased competition for desirable mates. This could lead to heightened conflict, jealousy, and social instability as people vie for the most attractive and high-status partners.
But without the mindsets of jealousy and competition, what's the problem?
I don't compete with my partner's wife. I don't love one partner less because another is doing a better job at peacocking or whatever.
Status and wealth matter in a mate when looking to build a stable monogamous nuclear family with a stay at home parent and all that jazz. Not when people prioritise their own independence.
Attractiveness is subjective.
I'd say I find a lot less than 20% of men remotely attractive. But that ones I'm drawn to aren't often the ones drowning in offers.
Just to be clear; my point of view comes from the idea of society being widely polygamous over the value of monogamy. So, in isolation, if it works for you, then that's absolutely within your rights to have that conclusion and I wouldn't argue against your own natural inclination.
My point of view was coming from the idea of a society wide shift to polygamy. I wasn't arguing polygamy as a moral failing or anything."
I would say that your views are coming from the mindset of monogamy though, where jealousy, possessiveness and competition are seen as positive relationship traits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s because society is based on an individual family unit, you go back to the basics of humanity and they work, all religions are based on this ideology, love thy neighbour, don’t steal his cow, don’t be an asshat etc, the very foundation of who we are is family, and for that to happen you need two adults who will bring children and share the responsibility of that family and then pass it down generation to generation.
The reason we are turning into a fractured society is because individualism is rising and people are ok with that on the base level, like I’m ok I can do what I want and don’t tell me how and what’ but once the responsibility of monogamy is given up it’s a slippery slope as it creates doubt in any relationship, ambivalence and anarchy on an individual basis is not want you want in a family unit, when you are getting your kids ready for school you need order, so they in turn learn to get organised and disciplined, if you show them that your own life is chaos then they will think that’s the norm and well here we are, descending into chaos because rules aren’t being followed, history is there for a reason |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Monogamy is pushed because marriage is still seen as the ideal (probably because it makes things simpler legally). Polygamy and polyamory are very different. Multiple partners with different expectations depending on the relationship/dynamic seems natural and achievable. Multiple marriages not so much. I don't think I'd personally want that and I'm already imagining the pearl-clutching "what about the children". We're still not that far the line historically from women being allowed to retain their property after marriage (1882).
The thoughts are pre-coffee and as such I can't be held responsible for any failures of logic
J |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The aliens who landed and created the pyramids etc, weren't able to leave the technology with people who could understand it, to sustain more complex relationships, so just planned to revisit and take couples away for their experiments and food supplies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any thoughts on this?
I have heard theories from ownership and property to survival and security of offspring, anybody have any other thoughts on this?
(Light hearted conspiracy theories welcome)"
Children generally benefit from a stable home life, and there is a great benefits with social and financial security within a healthy family environment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any thoughts on this?
I have heard theories from ownership and property to survival and security of offspring, anybody have any other thoughts on this?
(Light hearted conspiracy theories welcome)
Children generally benefit from a stable home life, and there is a great benefits with social and financial security within a healthy family environment. "
Yep bang on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a sad fact many people would not be able to accept multiple partners. If I was to wager probably men more so.
Look what happens with the rise of the incel. All these sad little men feeling entitled to have sex and acting like total shit bags when they dont. In a poly based society there is a fairly good chance that those numbers would rise as would male on female violence due to jealousy etc.
Add to the fact that family life would deteriorate faster than what it already is and it's a scary prospect.
Let those that are not emotionally evolved enough stay in monogamous relationships for the sake of society.
I can only go on what I know and over the years talking to lasses on here even where men feel that because they have had sex that a lass should now not fuck other site users is surprising. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My point of view was coming from the idea of a society wide shift to polygamy. I wasn't arguing polygamy as a moral failing or anything."
...
So, a society wide shift to polygamy, but retaining all the current mentality of monogamy?
Polygamy isn't illegal or anything here. Marrying multiple partners may be out of the question, but then marriage itself is a forsaking all others kind of vow, so it wouldn't really have a place except as a way to tie up financial matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As we evolved, the development of societal groups made sense, with benefits being, protection, dominance, efficiency, effectiveness, etc. Inevitably, with males and females living in the same groups, the struggle for genetic propagation would take place in the group, which if not managed by societal rules, could lead to the destruction of the group and individuals and therefore be self defeating. Acceptance of monogamy as a principle could enable the group to function without the potential for destruction allowing each male to fulfill their evolutionary objective of gene continuation. This principle was then enhanced and codified by Western Christian culture; not least as it suited the Church's purpose and provided a framework for managing society in accordance with its religious beliefs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ripfillMan 31 weeks ago
Paris, New York, Hong Kong and Havant |
"I’ve asked myself this a million times.
I am of the belief that monogamy made sense in a world where the average lifespan was 30-40 years.
I try to view it from the point of view of monogamy in terms of marriage and the idea of “one person for the rest of your life”. In seeing it that way, I am led to believe that monogamy made sense in a period where you may have met your one person in your mid teens to early 20s, and would still be getting to know them until your eventual death. It could be 10 years, it could be upwards of 20 years. Knowing this, you’d be compelled to not miss out on any time with that one person for a short eternity.
I realise this has loads of loopholes.
How do you explain concubines before the 29th century? Well, I think there must have been a social class difference whereas laypeople were expected to be monogamous and the noble were allowed gluttony in all aspects of life including partners and this concubines were legally and morally acceptable in societies.
With medical advancements that led to massive improvements in lifespans, I feel the idea of having one person who can always be on the same page as you and your needs, etc. for a prolonged period of time, who is your one and only, started to show cracks in what was socially accepted as a norm — monogamy. Not enough for the majority to go away from monogamy mind.
What I cannot fathom is how one thing that’s not changed throughout this time has never affected the majority view of monogamy. This being, parents of multiple children and how society views them in terms of love. Albeit, not romantic love of course. They aren’t expected to love one child any less than others but are expected to increase the love in their heart across any children they may have beyond one. If we as a species have the capacity to love — again not romantically in this case — more than one person, why couldn’t we romantically love more than one person and not have this be considered outside of normalcy? Does one need to have love and only romantic love for monogamy to function? Surely not. What would happen if society saw the opportunity romantic relationships as something that “takes a village” too? "
Well thought out … 100% agree. Also medication now extends life gives us wider choices too,
Society has to keep up with the the changing moral maze,
Could one imagine Fab even thirty years ago ?
There is freedom - some of us are getting there sooner than others |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *unchalMan 31 weeks ago
Dartford |
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
Good lord. It is far too late on a school night for the level of eyeroll that particular made up stat summons."
It must be something like that on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
Good lord. It is far too late on a school night for the level of eyeroll that particular made up stat summons."
86% of statistics are simply made up on the spot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s an accepted formula that has worked for a very long time and helps to legally protect individuals assets.
Nobody wants a Doris or a Clive showing up at your funeral cause you fingered there arse once in a truck stop back in 1986 trying to stake a claim to your vineyard in the South of France |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Primarily patriarchy and property rights, some would argue to be intrinsically linked.
In Christian society this was propagated by the church.
Women being exempt from property rights, in essence became property of their husband transferring from their father. Hence the tradition of the brides family paying for the wedding. Sex before marriage being shunned as was adultery.
In order to meet the basic human needs one was required to comply with this system or face severe consequences. Not just in this life, but the eternal damnation of one's soul.
So in essence monogamy is promoted by the exclusion of any other course of action, until it is normalised.
Benefits could be claimed such as maintenance of family units etc. But these are essentially circular arguments as they assume that the way things are to be the way things ought to be or the only viable option.
I am not claiming monogamy to be wrong, but I do believe that it's promotion is little more than antiquated cultural artefacts of the past. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"If society was polygamous, you'd probably find yourself having a lot less sex. The reason being is that only 20% of men would get most of the women.
There was an interesting article in New Scientist 2003 - That it's believed that up until 10,000 years ago there were indeed only a certain percentage of males who were having offspring with all the females. So in theory at that point, in that society the figure of around 20% wouldn't be that wrong. In other historical poly cultures it's often been only those males who can afford to support numerous female partners who have been able to sustain that dynamic.
Does this then more closely resemble a primate society like chimpanzees where provider / protector alpha types get the majority of mating rights
With everyone free to have multiple partners, there would likely be increased competition for desirable mates. This could lead to heightened conflict, jealousy, and social instability as people vie for the most attractive and high-status partners.
Economically and socially, challenges for child-rearing, resource allocation, and emotional bonds within families would be evident.
Outside of this particular community; unbridled egalitarian polygamy (where both men and women can have multiple partners) isn't the utopia that many may think it is.
Monogamy works out in the longer term, because its a simpler social structure to uphold in the long term as societies become more complex.
This is a complete fallacy. People find all sorts of aspects and people attractive, also in a society where people respect and have compersion for their partners, there would be people sharing not jealousy.
All of your comments are rather manosphere and a touch toxic"
I disagree that my perspective is inherently 'toxic' or 'manosphere.' I'm simply raising what I believe are valid concerns about potential challenges in poly arrangements, based on my understanding of human behavior and social dynamics. I'm open to hearing your point of view. But I don't believe it's constructive to label my view 'toxic' simply because you disagree with it.
My intent is not to demean anyone who prefers consensual non-monogamy. I'm sure there are many ethical, caring poly folks who are great communicators and are doing the hard work to make their relationships flourish.
I'm speaking in broad strokes about what I see as likely frictions that would arise if poly relationship structures became the predominant norm at a societal level. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Yes we must all feel guilty for wanting a stable family and partner and those who don't are apparently emotionally crippled  "
Well this is surprisingly good self awareness from a monogamous person. Bravo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It all comes from religion, before Christianity most of not all were pagan and we all know how pagans like to party haha but the bible says man must marry woman and have a family and that's that"
There were plenty of religions around long before Christianity.
Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, taoism and others … all around centuries before Christianity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Religion mostly and a mostly man made concept ? and loved my old teachers quote ....1st They invent the disease( adultery/sin etc etc etc ) 2nd They invent the cure ( Allah/jesus etc etc ) but mostly about females sexuality or just sexuality really and guilt is a great money spinner and the religion is the worlds largest ponzi scheme ! and 100% legal ! and the christians/muslims were more voilent then the rest of the other lot ? ( maybe) we've been together for nearly 30 years with no piece of paper xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man 31 weeks ago
Dorchester |
"Several reasons
Monogamy as a classical family base:
Protection of child
Division of labour
Free and safe sex supply
In ancient times protection and control of women.
Now just control of women 
 "
I'm not sure thats true anymore 'the control of women' aspect |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Several reasons
Monogamy as a classical family base:
Protection of child
Division of labour
Free and safe sex supply
In ancient times protection and control of women.
Now just control of women
"
In what way do you feel monogamy controls you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"The monogamous people have found a SWINGING website forum and won’t leave us alone!!!! 
What are you doing here Esteban? "
I got lost on my way to visit one of my many partners  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it "
Was that in Glamour magazine or Take a Break? Asking for a friend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it
Was that in Glamour magazine or Take a Break? Asking for a friend "
I first read it in Ebony but I did hear a similar version was published in Good Housekeeping  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it
Was that in Glamour magazine or Take a Break? Asking for a friend
I first read it in Ebony but I did hear a similar version was published in Good Housekeeping "
I was the author of the original one- I can talk you through it in private some time maybe.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it
Was that in Glamour magazine or Take a Break? Asking for a friend
I first read it in Ebony but I did hear a similar version was published in Good Housekeeping
I was the author of the original one- I can talk you through it in private some time maybe. "
Yeah sure. Once we’ve watched Rocky  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it
Was that in Glamour magazine or Take a Break? Asking for a friend
I first read it in Ebony but I did hear a similar version was published in Good Housekeeping
I was the author of the original one- I can talk you through it in private some time maybe.
Yeah sure. Once we’ve watched Rocky "
I’ll watch Rocky with you and Daizy together. Please |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it "
That is was once my view, through the lens of Marxist critique of capitalism. However, I believe the coincidence is patriarchy coupled with property rights. Marxist revolution doesn't lead to dissolution or hierarchy, just a replacement of it. Berkman discusses that issue in the ABC of Anarchism and attributes it to a lack of social consciousness. In simplistic terms a revolution is pointless if the people are not ready for the change. When there is a revolution people look to replace leaders rather than seeking self-empowerment. The leaders use the 'revolution' as a means to maintain their position perpetually and the self-sacrifice of its citizens.
The solution being to build the new world within the old until such time as the rise in social consciousness leads to a peaceful transition. I find anarchist and anarcha-feminist critiques more comprehensive than Marxist analysis. I think it has value, but mostly as an antithesis to capitalism than a complete picture and therefore the solutions it offers lack the temperance of a balancing force against hierarchy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it
That is was once my view, through the lens of Marxist critique of capitalism. However, I believe the coincidence is patriarchy coupled with property rights. Marxist revolution doesn't lead to dissolution or hierarchy, just a replacement of it. Berkman discusses that issue in the ABC of Anarchism and attributes it to a lack of social consciousness. In simplistic terms a revolution is pointless if the people are not ready for the change. When there is a revolution people look to replace leaders rather than seeking self-empowerment. The leaders use the 'revolution' as a means to maintain their position perpetually and the self-sacrifice of its citizens.
The solution being to build the new world within the old until such time as the rise in social consciousness leads to a peaceful transition. I find anarchist and anarcha-feminist critiques more comprehensive than Marxist analysis. I think it has value, but mostly as an antithesis to capitalism than a complete picture and therefore the solutions it offers lack the temperance of a balancing force against hierarchy."
Oh I was being serious but I thought it was good with the light hearted conspiracy stuff. I completely agree with you here Hans. Anarchist thought gets me. Anarcho communism is  . But like you say- transition happens best when collective consciousness Is achieved. But revolution is bloody even then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Monogamy is there because deep down inside all of us we crave love, it’s the strongest driving force in human survival, it’s what made you and every generation before that, if you have just a wild poly state where you just breed and to hell with consequences then we wouldn’t be here right now, the gene pool mantra is only the strongest survive and the strongest way to build a strong line of genetically survivable humans is a unit of humans who all believe in the same idea, you can’t have that in a poly world because in a poly world you are thinking of you and your immediate situation, there’s no long term exit strategy it’s just pleasure now worry later, it’s in built into us to love and to cherish and to pass that on, you cannot do that if you are fucking every available, hedonism brings down all empires, or are all the history books wrong now too as they don’t fit into the modern narrative , just because you can doesn’t mean you should |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personally I don't quite understand the whole British pressure/culture of "you have to own your own home". Yes, I agree it's nice to have a permanent base and in theory free will to do what you'd like. Friends on the continent have rented their entire lives - their parents and grandparents even - and don't understand why us in Britain are so adamant on home ownership. My wife's parents have always rented. They are happy enough.
We rent. In theory unless the housing market absolutely crashes to literally pennies or we win the lottery, this is how it'll be for the foreseeable. Yes, you can argue "you're not getting anything for it bar paying your landlords mortgage". True, but then I'd argue buying is literally just long term renting off whoever you've taken your mortgage off. It gives us some flexibility on where we'd like to live. If we want to move it's a fairly simple process, find another property, no selling/chain and all that. If anything goes bang - something major like a boiler or a hole in the roof - it's not our responsibility to fix it nor financially is it on us to fix and find the cash.
Whilst I would in a way love the "security" these four walls are in effect "my own" and if I want to doodle in sharpie then I can, I also don't buy into the hype about home ownership to a degree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it "
Monogamy is a lot older than that as a social construct |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read in a magazine that monogamy is a bourgeoisie concept designed to maintain the status quo in society and prevent Marxist revolution against capitalism. It’s yet another dominant idea that socially dominant groups use to maintain social order and hierarchy in society. It also spread during colonial enlightenment times as a result of western imperialism.
Pre colonial and pre capitalist societies featured many non monogamous relationship dynamics as the norm. Coincidence? I think not. Makes you wonder doesn’t it
That is was once my view, through the lens of Marxist critique of capitalism. However, I believe the coincidence is patriarchy coupled with property rights. Marxist revolution doesn't lead to dissolution or hierarchy, just a replacement of it. Berkman discusses that issue in the ABC of Anarchism and attributes it to a lack of social consciousness. In simplistic terms a revolution is pointless if the people are not ready for the change. When there is a revolution people look to replace leaders rather than seeking self-empowerment. The leaders use the 'revolution' as a means to maintain their position perpetually and the self-sacrifice of its citizens.
The solution being to build the new world within the old until such time as the rise in social consciousness leads to a peaceful transition. I find anarchist and anarcha-feminist critiques more comprehensive than Marxist analysis. I think it has value, but mostly as an antithesis to capitalism than a complete picture and therefore the solutions it offers lack the temperance of a balancing force against hierarchy.
Oh I was being serious but I thought it was good with the light hearted conspiracy stuff. I completely agree with you here Hans. Anarchist thought gets me. Anarcho communism is . But like you say- transition happens best when collective consciousness Is achieved. But revolution is bloody even then. "
If blood being spilled is inevitable I hope it is the least blood possible and something positive comes from it. I agree with you anarcho-communism is awesome sauce for the soul.
I think the most fundamental way I can conceptualise the question of monogamy is in terms of Erich Fromm's work 'To have or to be'. When we experience something we cherish it's natural for us to want the security of having or owning it, permanently. He gives the example of a flower, we want to take home with us, but the moment we pick it then it begins to die. For me that principle is more of a guide to relationships than mono or poly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The expectation of monogamy mainly arose when human society moved towards a goods and transactional based economy rather than one based around communal groups. When inheritance of property, land and things became part of human society, the only way to "guarantee" your offspring were yours, as a male, was to control the women around you so that they only did the Sex with you. This lead to the patriarchal basis of women's sexual behaviour being policed by men, and women who did not conform to monogamy being ostracised in society.
Some societies kept multiple women in controlled, closed environments again, where their behaviour around sex was controlled, e.g. the "harem".
Men have almost never been expected to remain monogamous and extra marital or pre marital sex was actually expected and encouraged to varying degrees in various societies. For example, Western men often went on the equivalent of stag dos before their wedding, to have sex with prøstitutes or other suitable women so that they were not clueless. Extra marital mistresses were completely accepted in most Western societies, so long as they were not expecting to take the throne or inherit above/beyond the children conceived in wedlock. Women who conducted similar extra marital affairs WERE usually oatracised and if marriage broke down as a consequence, women usually lost custody of their children to their former husband (who's extra marital affairs had to be tolerated).
Things like dowries and the changing of women's surnames from their father's (who "owned her first) to her husband's, stem from all this.
I could go on. Thanks for attending my TED Talk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Personally I don't quite understand the whole British pressure/culture of "you have to own your own home". Yes, I agree it's nice to have a permanent base and in theory free will to do what you'd like. Friends on the continent have rented their entire lives - their parents and grandparents even - and don't understand why us in Britain are so adamant on home ownership. My wife's parents have always rented. They are happy enough.
We rent. In theory unless the housing market absolutely crashes to literally pennies or we win the lottery, this is how it'll be for the foreseeable. Yes, you can argue "you're not getting anything for it bar paying your landlords mortgage". True, but then I'd argue buying is literally just long term renting off whoever you've taken your mortgage off. It gives us some flexibility on where we'd like to live. If we want to move it's a fairly simple process, find another property, no selling/chain and all that. If anything goes bang - something major like a boiler or a hole in the roof - it's not our responsibility to fix it nor financially is it on us to fix and find the cash.
Whilst I would in a way love the "security" these four walls are in effect "my own" and if I want to doodle in sharpie then I can, I also don't buy into the hype about home ownership to a degree. "
If you buy, you can give it to your kids if you have any and save them a shiload of fucking about trying to find rent or a place to buy. Or they can sell it and use the money as they please.
Think generationaly and it makes more sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Catholic Church and other religions have played a big part in the formation of society and customs "
All the monotheistic religions require monogamy of the female. Less stringent on the male. It's monogamy for all equally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
