Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think that monogamy is a social construct?

13

Comments

  • #62
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Toby Yummy Banner wrote: »
    Actually there's a cultural theorist called Robin Wood who reckoned that surplus repression was the driving impulse behind the rise of horror (and I think melodrama) films in the mid twentieth century.
    Interesting theory EB. Hmmm I can see where he's going with that. My personal take is that what has happened and has been happening to humans over the last say 40,000 years is that we have domesticated ourselves. We even physically look like domesticated versions of earlier humans and I suspect the traits of domestication have followed along too. Since the advent of farming and staying put this process has been accelerated within us and this may also plug into our mating strategies. I would also reckon that it has been the "job" of women to do much of the domestication. Religion was in there too.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #63
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Figures I alas do not have but a random google result would be "The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. In 1998, it is 76. However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties."
    Longevity is a hard nut to crack in fairness T. Stats are all over the place and it very much depends on where and when and into what social class someone is born. EG a Roman of the 1st century had far more chance of seeing 70 and beyond than a Frenchman of the 14th century, even from the same social level. As your link notes when you take the truly appalling childhood mortality stats out of the equation the whole picture shifts. Modern medicine and technology has added far many more years at the start of life rather than towards the end. There was a gender split too and generally opposite to today where women live longer. Pregnancy and birth was a death trap before modern medicine. We can see this in odd places like medieval churches and services where prayers and talismans to protect pregnant and birthing women crowd out many other worries. It's an interesting area indeed.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It's all about opportunity for many men.

    If some beautiful woman was to offer no strings attached sex with no possibility of it being found out, I think lots of men would forget about even the most committed relationship. And alcohol even further lowers any resistance and common sense. I'd say many men who are propositioned or "had the chance" would not so much say "impossible" as do a quick risk assessment.


  • #65
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Wibbs wrote: »

    Very true EB. The whole "virginal women are best" largely springs from when we first laid down permanent roots and inheritance of assets became serious business. Fidelity in the hunter gatherers is still very much valued, but virginity is not, or far less so. Maybe, though IMH that has been somewhat overrun by modern political and cultural perceptions. EG there are vanishingly few actual matriarchal societies and the majority that are claimed as such don't bear much scrutiny. Western patriarchal society is far more equal, some could even argue more matriarchal than any society that has preceded it.

    Yeah I only mentioned patriarchy as it tends to go hand in hand with capitalism; property, status and power follow the male hereditary line. When you've no idea who the daddy is, that's impossible. In some more nomadic/non-agricultural societies where property is less of a solid and important societal concept, monogamy is less of a big deal, and divorce is less formalised and more common. A non-patriarchal society, in that sense, is not necessarily a strongly matriarchal one. I think, just my impression from things I've read over the years, I'm no anthropologist


  • #66
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Toby Yummy Banner wrote: »
    Actually there's a cultural theorist called Robin Wood who reckoned that surplus repression was the driving impulse behind the rise of horror (and I think melodrama) films in the mid twentieth century. The thinking being that there's a healthy amount of repression required for a society to function; so we're not all running around fcuking our sisters, stealing our neighbours' shiny objects, punching people for laughing at our hair and basically acting like tall, horny, toddlers. Surplus repression then, is the degree of repression required for us to function as monogamous, heterosexual capitalists (three things he saw as fairly intertwined AFAIR). And that's why we get people so counterintuitively fascinated by horrible violent imagery and themes, it's the only outlet for transgression that they have!

    He was a bit of a Marxist hippie type though, if that's not clear.
    An alternative is that they show social mood , the early 30's were the firstset of horror movies next was the 70's and now zombie movies are pretty much kids TV these days. Contrast with the 90's where the horror was comedy spoofs of horror movies.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Toby Yummy Banner wrote: »
    Yeah I only mentioned patriarchy as it tends to go hand in hand with capitalism; property, status and power follow the male hereditary line. When you've no idea who the daddy is, that's impossible. In some more nomadic/non-agricultural societies where property is less of a solid and important societal concept, monogamy is less of a big deal, and divorce is less formalised and more common. A non-patriarchal society, in that sense, is not necessarily a strongly matriarchal one. I think, just my impression from things I've read over the years, I'm no anthropologist
    If Native Americans are anything to go by (as in tribal hunter gatherers) Women could have played a much more authoritative role too. In hunter gatherer societies women probably did most of the survival work. By modern accounts women collect the majority of the food while men are sent out to hunt but often come home empty handed.

    Children were always seen as a resource, and the tribe needed a constant flow of children to survive, it was probably much more important in a smaller tribe where a child brought up wrong could threaten the stability of the entire tribe.


  • #68
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's all about opportunity for many men.

    If some beautiful woman was to offer no strings attached sex with no possibility of it being found out, I think lots of men would forget about even the most committed relationship. And alcohol even further lowers any resistance and common sense. I'd say many men who are propositioned or "had the chance" would not so much say "impossible" as do a quick risk assessment.
    IMH and in my experience I'd say about the same number of women do the same sort of risk assessment. In the wide enough circle of people I've known, slightly more women cheated than the men. I'd bet while reasons, self explanations and practicalities for it may differ* cheating and temptation to do so is about evenly split gender wise.
    Toby Yummy Banner wrote:
    Yeah I only mentioned patriarchy as it tends to go hand in hand with capitalism; property, status and power follow the male hereditary line. When you've no idea who the daddy is, that's impossible.
    Very much so EB. Interestingly in one culture(whose name escapes. I think they're in the Nepal/Tibet neck of the woods) that is held up as an example of a matriarchal society, on deeper digging it turned out that they were indeed more matriarchal and property and title ran down the mother's side, but that this was because of another ruling culture above them imposed such a structure precisely to stop power accumulating in the males to the point where they could become a threat to the ruling overlords.






    *I have found the ladies were more likely to cheat as a one off opportunistic thing, the men more likely to sustain an affair.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #69
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Maybe Bonobos are technically monogamous when it comes to reproduction (I don't know) but when it comes to sex they'll do everyone but their mother. Intercourse is used as a way of conflict resolution.

    Most conflict resolution 'sex' among bonobos is homosexual. Also, dispute resolution sex does not result in orgasm.

    Just for what it's worth. I'm been there and studied them at length some years back.


  • #70
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's all about opportunity for many men.

    If some beautiful woman was to offer no strings attached sex with no possibility of it being found out, I think lots of men would forget about even the most committed relationship. And alcohol even further lowers any resistance and common sense. I'd say many men who are propositioned or "had the chance" would not so much say "impossible" as do a quick risk assessment.

    In fairness neither sex comes out looking good. If there is a biological impetus to be unfaithful for men the female version is to trade up or try get the genes from a dominant male and get a provider to raise it. Take away all taboos in the morning and harams would kick off fairly promptly,a famous actor or sportsman would easily fill a mansion with hotties.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #71
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's all about opportunity for many men.

    You could have made a good point but to be honest you lost me after this generalisation.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I tend to see these evolutionary questions in terms of energy. What is the option that requires the least energy? A monogamous couple can share a workload between them, but what about polygamy? In more primitive* societies - which typically don't have the concept of "society" - polygamy is more common: the "bigger" the man, the more wives he will have. While I haven't studied this subject, I suspect that polygamy is more efficient in energy terms, That's totally separate from any value judgment about its "rightness". :cool:

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Longevity is a hard nut to crack in fairness T. Stats are all over the place and it very much depends on where and when and into what social class someone is born.

    Absolutely which is why I have had to admit I really do not have the figures to hand.

    But as I said I think it is not _just_ a case of people generally statistically living longer but also a case they are _living_ longer. We can medicate and mediate for a lot of the conditions that would slow people down in older age. And modern society has pensions and other supports for the elderly.

    So the "declining years" for many have become a time to restart a whole new life. I enjoy hearing from my own aunt who at age 60 realised her marriage had run it's course so they split amicably and started dating. At 65 she partially retired. At 70 she fully retired - pretty much liquidated everything - and is now hopping all over the world visiting people and places she has not seen in ages - or not seen before.

    Where one in the past might "hope" to live to 60 or 80 - generally people today _expect_ to do so. And this has to affect their long term plans to some degree. And having longer term plans and expectations is going to put additional pressures on commitments to long term arrangements that one otherwise might not have had.

    So yes it is not just about living longer - but my point is combined with people _living_ that life longer - and further combined as I also said with having access to a wider world - and a wider knowledge of that world and it's possibilities - that is going to place some additional pressures - for some people - on committing long term to one relationship for the rest of ones life.

    Whether any of that is a good or bad thing though - is an entirely different conversation.


  • #74
    StupidLikeAFox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,784 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Everything is a social construct


  • #75
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    Toby Yummy Banner wrote: »
    I'd argue that capitalism actually has a lot more to do with it in reality than religion. Religion is usually used as the justification, but monogamy makes taxation, inheritance, insurance, liability for loans and so on run a lot more smoothly. There's a big overlap between societies which are further from the model of Western patriarchal capitalism and those which are openly non-monogamous.

    'Western patriarchal capitalism' Western countries are meritocracies. If you want to see patriarchy look to Islamis states. Women have every legal right men do in Western countries.


  • #76
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    bnt wrote: »
    I tend to see these evolutionary questions in terms of energy. What is the option that requires the least energy? A monogamous couple can share a workload between them, but what about polygamy? In more primitive* societies - which typically don't have the concept of "society" - polygamy is more common: the "bigger" the man, the more wives he will have. While I haven't studied this subject, I suspect that polygamy is more efficient in energy terms, That's totally separate from any value judgment about its "rightness". :cool:

    Yeah, the whole issue of monogamy is so polyvalent that the question as posed, "Do you think monogamy is a social construct?", is so reductive as to be meaningless.What kind of monogamy? Serial, lifelong? What kind of society? The family, the tribe, the village, the state, the church?

    However I think it is fair to say that making a moral value judgement about sexual behaviour is a social construct. Hell as someone pointed out, morality is a social construct.


  • #77
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    'Western patriarchal capitalism' Western countries are meritocracies. If you want to see patriarchy look to Islamis states. Women have every legal right men do in Western countries.

    I do apologise for triggering you into such outrage with that series of three words that you completely failed to understand the point of that post and apparently didn't even read the rest of them but seriously, CAN WE NOT. Go and fight your straw-feminist somewhere else.


  • #78
    Speedwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    Don't let's confuse evolutionary biology hypotheses from 50 years ago with the observed ways people act today.


  • #79
    the evasion_kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    social construct,call me old fashioned but i think the nuclear family model was/is the best...not the disastrous mess that goes on in society today


  • #80
    Speedwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    the evasion_kid wrote: »
    social construct,call me old fashioned but i think the nuclear family model was/is the best...not the disastrous mess that goes on in society today

    I wouldn't call you old-fashioned, exactly. Misguided by people with a religious bone to pick, and in serious need of some education and open-mindedness, I might call you that.


  • #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wibbs wrote: »
    IMH and in my experience I'd say about the same number of women do the same sort of risk assessment. In the wide enough circle of people I've known, slightly more women cheated than the men. I'd bet while reasons, self explanations and practicalities for it may differ* cheating and temptation to do so is about evenly split gender wise.

    The majority of my male friends in committed relationships either have cheated or have tried it on.

    I have less female friends, but some of those I do wouldn't even have sex with a married man, because of what it might do to his relationship and possibly her own self worth. Some of my single female friends have been pretty much harangued by my male friends trying it on and have declined. It never ceases to amaze me when they say "such and such (a married man) tried it on, found it hard to understand the word no, had to run away from him". I've rarely heard the converse, a man describing how he had to fight off a married woman I might know.

    That might all say something about the company I keep, granted!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Speedwell wrote: »
    I wouldn't call you old-fashioned, exactly. Misguided by people with a religious bone to pick, and in serious need of some education and open-mindedness, I might call you that.

    Its the best environment to raise kids in. Raising kids without 2 parents statistically will lead to worse outcomes. If kids aren't part of the equation then whatever floats your boat, society ought nor care or have an opinion what you get up to.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #83
    the evasion_kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    Speedwell wrote: »
    I wouldn't call you old-fashioned, exactly. Misguided by people with a religious bone to pick, and in serious need of some education and open-mindedness, I might call you that.

    not a religious bone in my body,i just looked at some of the most fcuked up scenarios and drama of others around me....nah thanks you can keep it


  • #84
    the evasion_kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    Speedwell wrote: »
    I wouldn't call you old-fashioned, exactly. Misguided by people with a religious bone to pick, and in serious need of some education and open-mindedness, I might call you that.
    silverharp wrote: »
    Its the best environment to raise kids in. Raising kids without 2 parents statistically will lead to worse outcomes. If kids aren't part of the equation then whatever floats your boat, society ought nor care or have an opinion what you get up to.

    newish housing estate were i live that i walk past most days,that houses mostly single parents,you dont need a crystal ball to see what its going to degenerate into...


  • #85
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    'Western patriarchal capitalism' Western countries are meritocracies If you want to see patriarchy look to Islamis states. Women have every legal right men do in Western countries.



    Baaaahahahahaha. Bless


  • #86
    Speedwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    silverharp wrote: »
    Its the best environment to raise kids in. Raising kids without 2 parents statistically will lead to worse outcomes. If kids aren't part of the equation then whatever floats your boat, society ought nor care or have an opinion what you get up to.

    It is generally the case that two involved parents are better than one. It is not the case that the two parents have to be a man and a woman in a traditional marriage.


  • #87
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    the evasion_kid wrote: »
    newish housing estate were i live that i walk past most days,that houses mostly single parents,you dont need a crystal ball to see what its going to degenerate into...
    Well single mothers are at a huge disadvantage. Even the supposed "nuclear family" is a bit of a myth. The fact is a traditional mother father setup would struggle on it's own, most families include extended family and even the state has to help out significantly. Single mothers have had to endure stigma and being ostracized by society as a whole. It's much better now and with the support of family I've seen plenty of single mothers raise their children as well as any other type of family unit. I've seen women choose single parenthood over going into a relationships they know will not go well. If anything I'd say there's the potential for a much more stable family unit because there's one authority and no conflict in that authority.

    The nuclear family was a social construct and if you didn't adhere to it you didn't do well in society. As long as society supports the people raising the children the family unit can be flexible without affecting the children.


  • #88
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    the evasion_kid wrote: »
    social construct,call me old fashioned but i think the nuclear family model was/is the best...not the disastrous mess that goes on in society today
    Well, polygamy in tribal society isn't a "thing" on its own, it's one part of a wider male/female divide: the males compete for more access to resources, which includes women. They butt heads - sometimes literally - and fight wars against other tribes for their resources (again including women). In Zulu society, for example, a young man would become just one more soldier in the impi, but if he was good he would rise through the ranks, and thus be better placed to marry one or more women. The opposite happened too: bad soldiers wouldn't get the women, assuming they even survived long enough to be sad about it. :eek:

    Then, in the 1870s, along come the British with their civilised "Christian" values, which include monogamy: there were definitely some moral value judgements flying around. Zulu society today is pretty much monogamous, at least in formal legal terms. Across the border in Swaziland, however, King Mswati III currently has 15 wives and 25 children ...

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #89
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    the evasion_kid wrote: »
    newish housing estate were i live that i walk past most days,that houses mostly single parents,you dont need a crystal ball to see what its going to degenerate into...

    But is single parenthood a causal factor of what's happening, or a symptom? If you have a woman in her thirties with a good income, good qualifications, stable family background, good mental and physical health etc, her becoming a single mother isn't any cause for concern for her child


  • #90
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,712 ✭✭✭storker


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Maybe Bonobos are technically monogamous when it comes to reproduction (I don't know) but when it comes to sex they'll do everyone but their mother. Intercourse is used as a way of conflict resolution.

    I think I've just decided what I'd like to come back as...


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    the evasion_kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    Toby Yummy Banner wrote: »
    But is single parenthood a causal factor of what's happening, or a symptom? If you have a woman in her thirties with a good income, good qualifications, stable family background, good mental and physical health etc, her becoming a single mother isn't any cause for concern for her child

    i dont think they would be of that variety...id say daddy government is in the backround


Advertisement