could you handle a polyamory relationship

Fourier · 12-11-2018 11:17pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

If we evolved for monogomy cheating and adultery wouldn't be so common.

Nobody is saying we evolved for monogamy. Just that monogamy is part of the range of natural human sexual behaviours, so there are those who are naturally monogamous, they're not lying to themselves or afraid of polygamy.

Wibbs · 12-11-2018 11:19pm

Fourier wrote: »

So Monogamy being a major part of the natural range of human sexual behaviors is the current model among anthropologists. Not that Monogamy is constructed to preserve the status quo and we're all naturally Polygamous as Lillybloom suggested.

That seems to be the consensus alright and one I'd agree with as it makes sense on a few levels. If it was a result of a move towards settling in place, agriculture and civilisation, then one would expect tribal societies to not promote monogamy as a general rule, with the natural variation that humans display. The majority of hunter gatherer peoples practice a marriage type rite and promote monogamy after such unions take place. With many, before such a ceremony young men and boys are often encouraged to play the field.

Now the legal notion of Marriage was heavily promoted after the agricultural revolution. The earliest laws can demonstrate this. The biggies consist of murder and the like of course, but the others are theft, ownership of stuff and marriage. When we settled down and grew in population, a minority of men started to accumulate more and more stuff. They wanted to pass this stuff on to the next generation of sons. They were very wary of promiscuity in women. They wanted to be sure any son his wife had was his, not a cuckoo in the nest not carrying his bloodline(which if found out later would also have legal implications).

I would reckon and experience of modern liberal post sexual revolution times seems to confirm it. It seems the majority are monogamous when they decide OK the music's stopped, he/she's "the One". Before that many sow their wild oats and oatesses, or have a couple of "Ones". Others don't. Beyond that majority you have folks who follow a very different trajectory and cool beans if they find similar to themselves. They might be more open to "thrupples" and polygamy in general.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Pffft! He doesn't even have grad students.

I don't have good grad students EH, but they will go to the off licence for me as I've decided it adds credit to their assignments.

Fourier · 12-11-2018 11:21pm

Thanks for the detail Wibbs.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:25pm

Fourier wrote: »

I looked at this a bit more.

Rather than reading Sex at Dawn itself, I read some of the academic commentary on it.

It mostly seems to have not really been noticed in the relevant fields and was rejected by OUP for publication.

Even one of the more positive reviews from a Dr. Emily Nagoski is fairly scathing at the end.

Out of Eden is a more respected and one I have read. However I know most don't consider his view of Monogamy being constructed as valid and it certainly isn't the standard view among anthropologists. Plus I don't think his conclusion would sit well with some (he thinks Monogamy is unnatural, but it's what we should do, like how physical conflict is natural but we should avoid it).

A review of it by Dr. Catherine Driscoll at the University of Sydney actually states the standard view is what you said

The full review is behind a Springer-Verlag paywall, but just in case some have access and you can read the summary:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-017-9573-3

So Monogamy being a major part of the natural range of human sexual behaviors is the current model among anthropologists. Not that Monogamy is constructed to preserve the status quo and we're all naturally Polygamous as Lillybloom suggested.

If monogomy was natural to humans why did we invest a contract to enforce it?

If monogomy were natural people wouldn't be bored of sex with the same person, you wouldn't have to make an effort to keep your sex life interesting with your spouse.

Pretty much every book that breaks the status quo which people are invested in will be widely criticised, it's normal.

Wibbs · 12-11-2018 11:31pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

If monogomy was natural to humans why did we invest a contract to enforce it?

Such "contracts" are to be found in Tribal and hunter gatherer cultures too. The only difference being with the invention of the written word we could make that social contract externally and "written in stone". The social contract was already long "invented".

Never mind the other angle on it, the celebration among a family, clan or city of a socially bound contract. They're seen as stable points in a life, even if outside them things are anything but stable. This has a long human history.

Fourier · 12-11-2018 11:34pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

If monogomy was natural to humans why did we invest a contract to enforce it?

I don't have the knowledge to answer that, but it seems to be the conclusion within the relevant field that monogamy is part of our natural sexual behaviour.

However, I don't see a social contract that enforces something as evidence that it is unnatural. Many medieval societies had laws enforcing hospitality, despite the fact that it is a natural disposition among most (even some would suffice for the point).

mvl · 12-11-2018 11:35pm

Fourier wrote: »

Nobody is saying we evolved for monogamy. Just that monogamy is part of the range of natural human sexual behaviours, so there are those who are naturally monogamous, they're not lying to themselves or afraid of polygamy.

are we differentiating between monogamy and serial monogamy in this context ?

as monogamy means having one intimate partner for ones entire life, thinking majority of ppl are not monogamous anyway

Fourier · 12-11-2018 11:36pm

mvl wrote: »

are we differentiating between monogamy and serial monogamy in this context ?

as monogamy means having one intimate partner for ones entire life, thinking majority of ppl are not monogamous anyway

Even Mammies and Daddies? :eek:

Serial monogamy included.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:40pm

Wibbs wrote: »

That seems to be the consensus alright and one I'd agree with as it makes sense on a few levels. If it was a result of a move towards settling in place, agriculture and civilisation, then one would expect tribal societies to not promote monogamy as a general rule, with the natural variation that humans display. The majority of hunter gatherer peoples practice a marriage type rite and promote monogamy after such unions take place. With many, before such a ceremony young men and boys are often encouraged to play the field.

Now the legal notion of Marriage was heavily promoted after the agricultural revolution. The earliest laws can demonstrate this. The biggies consist of murder and the like of course, but the others are theft, ownership of stuff and marriage. When we settled down and grew in population, a minority of men started to accumulate more and more stuff. They wanted to pass this stuff on to the next generation of sons. They were very wary of promiscuity in women. They wanted to be sure any son his wife had was his, not a cuckoo in the nest not carrying his bloodline(which if found out later would also have legal implications).

I would reckon and experience of modern liberal post sexual revolution times seems to confirm it. It seems the majority are monogamous when they decide OK the music's stopped, he/she's "the One". Before that many sow their wild oats and oatesses, or have a couple of "Ones". Others don't. Beyond that majority you have folks who follow a very different trajectory and cool beans if they find similar to themselves. They might be more open to "thrupples" and polygamy in general.

I don't have good grad students EH, but they will go to the off licence for me as I've decided it adds credit to their assignments.

They realised that it was the natural inclination of women to have multiple lovers, so did everything they could to prevent women being promiscuous. They invesnted marriage, they invented the idea of hell, some cultures prevented them drinking or even exposing attractive features to keep men away.

Wibbs · 12-11-2018 11:41pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

If monogomy were natural people wouldn't be bored of sex with the same person, you wouldn't have to make an effort to keep your sex life interesting with your spouse.

Many people don't find it an effort. Many do, but not always at the same time and it passes.

There does appear to be vague phases in romantic love: infatuation(couple of weeks/months), being "In love"(runs between two and four years), a period of reevaluation, if it passes that then longterm "love"(which can keep going to the grave).

There is the theory that the basic human reproduction cycle of attachment lasts about three to four years, enough time to pair bond, do the dance with no pants with every spare moment dedicated to it, get pregnant, give birth and wean the baby.

The longer term pair bond would follow the same as above, but after the reevaluation both decide that the other is good parent and partner and the love glow of their shared child will keep things ticking over until the next a little less passionate cycle kicks off.

Pretty much every book that breaks the status quo which people are invested in will be widely criticised, it's normal.

It can be the case, but not in the case of "pretty much every book".

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:42pm

Fourier wrote: »

I don't have the knowledge to answer that, but it seems to be the conclusion within the relevant field that monogamy is part of our natural sexual behaviour.

However, I don't see a social contract that enforces something as evidence that it is unnatural. Many medieval societies had laws enforcing hospitality, despite the fact that it is a natural disposition among most (even some would suffice for the point).

Why haven't we created contracts where people who sign it agree to eat and drink so they don't die?

If something somes naturally to people contracts aren't needed. If we truly evolved to be monogomous we would feel the same excitement having sex with someone after 10 years or 10 days.

12-11-2018 11:44pm

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/13/a-strong-libido-and-bored-by-monogamy-the-truth-about-women-and-sex

Monogamy is just another way of men policing women's sexuality, it kills a woman's libido and then society blames the woman for turning off sex.

Interesting that it's mostly men on here admitting they'd be too jealous to "share" their partner with someone else.

Fourier · 12-11-2018 11:49pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

Why haven't we created contracts where people who sign it agree to eat and drink so they don't die?

This is becoming tedious.

Having a contract to guarantee behaviour that is natural to some/most isn't surprising, because it's only natural to some/most you need a fallback if it fails.

Lillybloom wrote:

They realised that it was the natural inclination of women to have multiple lovers, so did everything they could to prevent women being promiscuous. They invesnted marriage, they invented the idea of hell

This is pop-Patriarchy. There is no common "they" here, who are these "they", the commune of immortal elders who live in the Phallic tower of eternity?

Also Hell developed out of a confluence of Christianity and previous European polytheistic beliefs, it wasn't made up to control women.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:50pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/13/a-strong-libido-and-bored-by-monogamy-the-truth-about-women-and-sex

Monogamy is just another way of men policing women's sexuality, it kills a woman's libido and then society blames the woman for turning off sex.

Interesting that it's mostly men on here admitting they'd be too jealous to "share" their partner with someone else.

It polices men's libido also to prevent the most attractive men having multiple women and none for the less attractive men. Men with no women are more like to be violent and destructivr and less likely to be productive whch is bad for civilisation. Hence we have marriage and "thou shalt no covet thy neighbour's wife".

Have a ready of nancy Friday's books to see how deep and iteresting the female libido is. Early farmers became more awareof this and had to repress it for civilisation to grow.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:52pm

Fourier wrote: »

This is becoming tedious.

Having a contract to guarantee behaviour that is natural to some/most isn't surprising, because it's only natural to some/most you need a fallback if it fails.

This is pop-Patriarchy. There is no common "they" here, who are these "they", the commune of immortal elders who live in the Phallic tower of eternity?

Also Hell developed out of a confluence of Christianity and previous European polytheistic beliefs, it wasn't made up to control women.

They are early farmers seeking to grow society and civilisation.

Wibbs · 12-11-2018 11:53pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

They realised that it was the natural inclination of women to have multiple lovers, so did everything they could to prevent women being promiscuous.

You do realise a man being promiscuous was also considered dodgy in those same cultures? Not quite as dodgy as women, for one obvious reason. Men, until the last few decades, a blink in human culture and evolution, couldn't be sure the child was his. Women, may not be quite sure who the father is(though usually are), but they always know they're their mother. As far as parentage goes a promiscuous woman is a harder nut to crack compared to a promiscuous man. Now why a promiscuous man was an issue of whatever stores of "stuff" and resources and his time and attention he had accumulated would be spread more thinly and detrimental to his kids and "wives".

They invesnted marriage, they invented the idea of hell, some cultures prevented them drinking or even exposing attractive features to keep men away.

"They"? Men? Ok... today and for most of recorded history, which gender is more in thrall to marriage and the wedding? Are there books and monthly magazines about marriage and weddings aimed at men? In wedding ceremonies around the world, which gender is usually the one more dolled up?

As for "hell" and all that; which gender is more likely to be religious/"spiritual"?

Wibbs · 12-11-2018 11:54pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

They are early farmers seeking to grow society and civilisation.

So it's men who are responsible for society and civilisation? Thanks for that. Nice to hear, for a change...

12-11-2018 11:57pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

It polices men's libido also to prevent the most attractive men having multiple women and none for the less attractive men. Men with no women are more like to be violent and destructivr and less likely to be productive whch is bad for civilisation. Hence we have marriage and "thou shalt no covet thy neighbour's wife".

Have a ready of nancy Friday's books to see how deep and iteresting the female libido is. Early farmers became more awareof this and had to repress it for civilisation to grow.

True enough, though I do believe a certain percentage of people are suited to it and conversely some people are literally incapable of it.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:58pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise a man being promiscuous was also considered dodgy in those same cultures? Not quite as dodgy as women, for one obvious reason. Men, until the last few decades, a blink in human culture and evolution, couldn't be sure the child was his. Women, may not be quite sure who the father is(though usually are), but they always know they're their mother. As far as parentage goes a promiscuous woman is a harder nut to crack compared to a promiscuous man. Now why a promiscuous man was an issue of whatever stores of "stuff" and resources and his time and attention he had accumulated would be spread more thinly and detrimental to his kids and "wives".

"They"? Men? Ok... today and for most of recorded history, which gender is more in thrall to marriage and the wedding? Are there books and monthly magazines about marriage and weddings aimed at men? In wedding ceremonies around the world, which gender is usually the one more dolled up?

As for "hell" and all that; which gender is more likely to be religious/"spiritual"?

Of course a man being promiscuous was considered dodgy, if a man is promiscuous that means other men are not getting a virgin.

There's a secret the inventors of marriage didn't know, it doesn't work very well, the female libido is still going to be the female libido regardless of a contract. And women are very likely to be unfaithful if they meets the right man at the right time of the month.

Likewise the male libido is going to be the male libido.

Fourier · 13-11-2018 12:02am

Well look at this point you're going against all knowledge in the relevant fields, so I'll have to bow out.

Maybe you should consider that it's not that radical a claim to say "deep down" some people actually like being monogamous and not because they're lemmings terrified of their own nature. Just that different people are different.

Lillybloom · 13-11-2018 12:03am

Fourier wrote: »

Well look at this point you're going against all knowledge in the relevant fields, so I'll have to bow out.

Maybe you should consider that it's not that radical a claim to say "deep down" some people actually like being monogamous and not because they're lemmings terrified of their own nature. Just that different people are different.

There is variation but also large trends. I think monogomy causes harm to most people psychologically. They loose their mojo.

Wibbs · 13-11-2018 12:10am

Lillybloom wrote: »

Of course a man being promiscuous was considered dodgy, if a man is promiscuous that means other men are not getting a virgin.

You don't even begin to consider the "virgin" not getting a man? I'm thinking "feminist" here. Can't be helped.

There's a secret the inventors of marriage didn't know, it doesn't work very well, the female libido is still going to be the female libido regardless of a contract. And women are very likely to be unfaithful if they meets the right man at the right time of the month.

Something that didn't work very well that it has been a staple of history going back 8000 years and into prehistory going back many more millennia?

professore · 13-11-2018 12:12am

Lillybloom wrote: »

Juat having a discussion on the issue, why are you getting so worked up?

Most people are lemmings, and will just drift towards what the crowd does afraid to do what they truly desire. Monogomy was needed to build civilisation hence it is the status quo.

The default setup for humanity would be the strongest men taking sex by force from multiple women and killing any challengers. This went to extremes with some of the ancient emperors, the likes of many of the Chinese emperors, Genghis Khan and our very own Niall of the Nine Hostages. Even Solomon in the Old Testament had hundreds of wives. The record is there for all to see on the Y chromosome. Also why rape and pillage was a reward for soldiers in the past - the women were monopolised back home so they got to "enjoy" the enemies women.

Wibbs · 13-11-2018 12:22am

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/13/a-strong-libido-and-bored-by-monogamy-the-truth-about-women-and-sex

Monogamy is just another way of men policing women's sexuality, it kills a woman's libido and then society blames the woman for turning off sex.

The Guardian? :pac::pac: That article and the woman they quote is full of unsubstantiated claims and claims that go against actual scientific studies.

Interesting that it's mostly men on here admitting they'd be too jealous to "share" their partner with someone else.

It's "mostly men on here", fullstop, or "period" if you've been assimilated. Many, if not most women would also be "too jealous"(though more like a general WTF?!!). What's the most common reason for a woman calling for divorce? Infidelity. And women instigate the majority of divorces.

professore · 13-11-2018 12:24am

I do think in the instances of people trying to cheat when married, I've seen more women do it than men.

mvl · 13-11-2018 12:25am

was this mentioned before // STDs and not love or religion being the reason humans became monogamous (as monogamous groups were healthier)

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/149646/20160412/monogamy-humans-sexually-transmitted-diseases.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11219"]https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11219

- So going back to OP - if I remember correctly, polyamorous couples have strict rules aiming to protect the sexual health and safety of the people involved (rules about frequent STD testing or consent for fluid bonding with non-primaries) - this may be one of the good things about it ...

Lillybloom · 13-11-2018 7:58am

Wibbs wrote: »

You don't even begin to consider the "virgin" not getting a man? I'm thinking "feminist" here. Can't be helped.

Something that didn't work very well that it has been a staple of history going back 8000 years and into prehistory going back many more millennia?

Marriage certainly helped build civilisation, but it also caused a range of problems, it doesn't eliminate promiscuity for a start, cheating is very common.

ToddyDoody · 13-11-2018 8:06am

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/13/a-strong-libido-and-bored-by-monogamy-the-truth-about-women-and-sex

Monogamy is just another way of men policing women's sexuality, it kills a woman's libido and then society blames the woman for turning off sex.

Interesting that it's mostly men on here admitting they'd be too jealous to "share" their partner with someone else.

10 in a bed.

Zorya · 13-11-2018 9:30am

Fourier wrote: »

who are these "they", the commune of immortal elders who live in the Phallic tower of eternity?
.

:D

Hector Savage · 13-11-2018 9:34am

Why is Louis Theroux so popular ?
He really does **** all, just hangs around and asks stupid questions ... maybe he gets down to their level, never got him.

Zorya · 13-11-2018 9:45am

Lillybloom wrote: »

There is variation but also large trends. I think monogomy causes harm to most people psychologically. They loose their mojo.

I have not seen this loss of mojo generally speaking. Everyone gets the sh!t kicked out of them in life, no one is a throbbing love god day in, day out.

Or rather, to be more specific, I have not seen the converse that people who spend decades shagging around appear to be exceptionally groovy, and possessors of the mojo, especially later in life.

In this very rural part of the world where I live, among the locals and the blow ins there are many single roaming men, who had opportunistic sex at best throughout their lives, for the heros could never settle down. There was always a new lassie to conquer and there might have been reasonable variety for a few good years.

This was grand when they were still the winsome lad, but it wears thin when the years sit more heavy on them. It is by then the married chaps who have a better chance of having held onto some mojo, good cheer, even good health and so on, and not the serial shaggers who have often devolved into varying degrees of lonely and bitter. And likewise the women who shagged around and could never settle down, though there are fewer of these in the end.

There are some people who sail through in these circumstances - I have met them, happy go lucky people who thrived - but it does not seem to be the recipe for eternal happiness in most cases.

Just my anecdotal anthropological observations.

professore · 13-11-2018 9:48am

Lillybloom wrote: »

If monogomy was natural to humans why did we invest a contract to enforce it?

Property rights. Nothing to do with sex. Back in the day noblemen slept around all the time and had "bastard" children, who were often knights themselves. It was an accepted part of life.

Inheritances get very messy if you have 100 kids from 60 different women.

Zorya · 13-11-2018 9:50am

mvl wrote: »

was this mentioned before // STDs and not love or religion being the reason humans became monogamous (as monogamous groups were healthier)

...

Yes, I would have always thought STDs were a good evolutionary reason for monogamy. STDs seeping into the clan can weaken the species for generations to come. There are theories that some ill health can be traced to syphilitic weakness in the constitution passed on genetically through generations, for example.

Lillybloom · 13-11-2018 9:51am

Zorya wrote: »

I have not seen this loss of mojo generally speaking. Everyone gets the sh!t kicked out of them in life, no one is a throbbing love god day in, day out.

Or rather, to be more specific, I have not seen the converse that people who spend decades shagging around appear to be exceptionally groovy, and possessors of the mojo, especially later in life.

In this very rural part of the world where I live, among the locals and the blow ins there are many single roaming men, who had opportunistic sex at best throughout their lives, for the heros could never settle down. There was always a new lassie to conquer and there might have been reasonable variety for a few good years.

This was grand when they were still the winsome lad, but it wears thin when the years sit more heavy on them. It is by then the married chaps who have a better chance of having held onto some mojo, good cheer, even good health and so on, and not the serial shaggers who have often devolved into varying degrees of lonely and bitter. And likewise the women who shagged around and could never settle down, though there are fewer of these in the end.

There are some people who sail through in these circumstances - I have met them, happy go lucky people who thrived - but it does not seem to be the recipe for eternal happiness in most cases.

Just my anecdotal anthropological observations.

Neither does marriage appear to be the recipe for happiness.

professore · 13-11-2018 9:57am

Some posters on here seem to think that men are shocked to learn that women are capable of cheating and enjoy sex. The only men that think that in 2018 must be living under a rock. Back in the 80s they were more subtle about it. Now it's practically celebrated. Most of the divorces I've seen have been "No fault" followed by the woman shacking up with her male "friend". Plenty of "happy marriages" where the woman is having multiple affairs. I think the man having multiple affairs is less common now than it was.

I guess that's real equality - women get to be as ****ty as men are and don't have to hide it anymore.

Boom_Bap · 13-11-2018 10:00am

Hector Savage wrote: »

Why is Louis Theroux so popular ?
He really does **** all, just hangs around and asks stupid questions ... maybe he gets down to their level, never got him.

It's his awkward way of asking questions and long silences, it for some reason makes people open up more. The questions probably have been well thought out in advance to sound stupid but are leading.

PlaneSpeeking · 13-11-2018 10:25am

Lillybloom wrote: »

Neither does marriage appear to be the recipe for happiness.

Really ? That would be why the LGBT community worldwide are fighting for the right to marry, to express their desire to be one with another person for life ?

Big Nasty · 13-11-2018 10:49am

Zorya wrote: »

I have not seen this loss of mojo generally speaking. Everyone gets the sh!t kicked out of them in life, no one is a throbbing love god day in, day out.

Or rather, to be more specific, I have not seen the converse that people who spend decades shagging around appear to be exceptionally groovy, and possessors of the mojo, especially later in life.

In this very rural part of the world where I live, among the locals and the blow ins there are many single roaming men, who had opportunistic sex at best throughout their lives, for the heros could never settle down. There was always a new lassie to conquer and there might have been reasonable variety for a few good years.

This was grand when they were still the winsome lad, but it wears thin when the years sit more heavy on them. It is by then the married chaps who have a better chance of having held onto some mojo, good cheer, even good health and so on, and not the serial shaggers who have often devolved into varying degrees of lonely and bitter. And likewise the women who shagged around and could never settle down, though there are fewer of these in the end.

There are some people who sail through in these circumstances - I have met them, happy go lucky people who thrived - but it does not seem to be the recipe for eternal happiness in most cases.

Just my anecdotal anthropological observations.

I can see them in my minds eye right now - 40-odd and going to fat but still sporting blond highlights and an eyebrow ring.

13-11-2018 11:27am

Wibbs wrote: »

The Guardian? :pac::pac: That article and the woman they quote is full of unsubstantiated claims and claims that go against actual scientific studies.

It's "mostly men on here", fullstop, or "period" if you've been assimilated. Many, if not most women would also be "too jealous"(though more like a general WTF?!!). What's the most common reason for a woman calling for divorce? Infidelity. And women instigate the majority of divorces.

So infidelity is so widespread it's the leading cause of divorce? Tbf, that just proves that a lot of people struggle with monogamy. Imo, it's a spectrum, broadly speaking, some people are naturally monogamous, some people struggle with it but accept it, some people struggle with it and reject it, and some people have no time for it at all. The people who are at the far end of the spectrum to monogamy would be capable of being truly polyamorous, but most people are somewhere in the middle.

Any stats to back up either of your assertions above (that infidelity is the leading course of divorce or that many/most women would be as jealous? Not disagreeing, just want to see the figures.)

Zorya · 13-11-2018 11:30am

Big Nasty wrote: »

I can see them in my minds eye right now - 40-odd and going to fat but still sporting blond highlights and an eyebrow ring.

Or wiry whiskey and weed loving lads and lassies. Ach sure look, there's all kinds of lives that bring pleasure and contentment, just the idea of monogamy as some kind of enforced sentence that consumes ones mojo is a bit silly.

seamus · 13-11-2018 11:30am

Lillybloom wrote: »

Do you think we'd have the civilisation we do today if monogomy and marriage was never introduced?

Do you think we'd have the monogamy we have today if civilisation was never introduced?

seamus · 13-11-2018 11:36am

Boom_Bap wrote: »

It's his awkward way of asking questions and long silences, it for some reason makes people open up more. The questions probably have been well thought out in advance to sound stupid but are leading.

This is actually a specific technique, but you don't see it often on entertainment media because dead air is a cardinal sin.

Ask someone a question. If you want them to expand further on it, or you don't think they're being 100% upfront, then don't react when they finish. Just sit there and look at them, expectantly. 99 times out of 100 they'll crack within 3 or 4 seconds and start speaking again to fill the silence.

Lillybloom · 13-11-2018 12:19pm

seamus wrote: »

Do you think we'd have the monogamy we have today if civilisation was never introduced?

There'd be no need for monogomy, so sexual practices would look different, pair bonding would still exist for a number of years, there'd be more group sex and promiscuity.

Hector Savage · 13-11-2018 12:30pm

Boom_Bap wrote: »

It's his awkward way of asking questions and long silences, it for some reason makes people open up more. The questions probably have been well thought out in advance to sound stupid but are leading.

Sure, I mean I see the guy in interviews and he's very intelligent and articulate, it's just a strange style he has, but yeah it seems to work for him ...

professore · 13-11-2018 12:31pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

There'd be no need for monogomy, so sexual practices would look different, pair bonding would still exist for a number of years, there'd be more group sex and promiscuity.

This is more feminist BS. The strongest men - not the best looking, sensitive types - would **** who they want. The rest would get scraps. They would kill any other man who tried it on with one of their harem. That's the long and short of it.

The women would raise the kids together in a communal way and probably have lesbian sex with each other.

There wouldn't be more promiscuity. There would be far less.

There would be constant violence to compete to be the top dog. Tribes would fight each other so they could rape each other's women. This is the reality of this type of society, not the hippy dippy utopia that is so often portrayed.

seamus · 13-11-2018 12:33pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

There'd be no need for monogomy, so sexual practices would look different, pair bonding would still exist for a number of years, there'd be more group sex and promiscuity.

Mine was a facetious response pointing out the error that you made in assuming that monogamy was "introduced" as a consequence of society.

There is/was no "guiding hand". No leader woke up one day and thought, "Monogamy! That's what will make us stronger!"

It just happened. Evolution - biological & social - is the pattern where something that's good at making copies of itself, continues to do so. It's not guided, it's pure happenstance. Cultures which have traditionally practiced non-monogamous structures, are basically not as good at proliferating themselves as cultures where monogamy is typical. Tribal leaders with harems of women. Communes of women with male inseminators. "Free love" communites. They were all crushed by the rapid expansion of monogamous cultures. Monogamy shaped our civilisation, it wasn't conceived by it.

There's still disagreement about how much is biological and how much is social. Iirc, the leading theory now is that in reproduction, as in many other spheres, humans are non-specialised. Biologically we have not evolved to be strictly monogamous nor non-monogamous, but rather to be exactly what we are right now - largely monogamous but with significant constant competitive pressure.

It could be posited that this is what has propelled us forward as a species; both parents care for their offspring over the long-term as needed, but adults remain driven and alert by the constant competition posed by other potential mates.

Lillybloom · 13-11-2018 12:35pm

professore wrote: »

This is more feminist BS. The strongest men - not the best looking, sensitive types - would **** who they want. The rest would get scraps. They would kill any other man who tried it on with one of their harem. That's the long and short of it.

The women would raise the kids together in a communal way and probably have lesbian sex with each other.

There wouldn't be more promiscuity. There would be far less.

I never said the strongest best looking men wouldn'tget most women. I would agree with much of what said in the book "Sex at Dawn". Group sex would be much more common.

CrankyHaus · 13-11-2018 12:49pm

https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war

An excellent analysis of the societal problems polygamy causes, though it may slightly overstate its case.

professore · 13-11-2018 12:49pm

What is the point of a monogamous relationship anyway?

The only real benefit for a man is that he is sure his children are actually his. Once he's sure of that, he can then commit to helping to raise them or go off and try to impregnate more women to spread his genetic pool. Nowadays society punishes men financially for this behaviour but this is purely a social construct. Of course he then has to be OK with the idea of other men being around his kids. Since he doesn't care about family stuff, the chances are that these other men are better fathers anyway, or at least better carers. Whether they raise confident successful sons in particular is an open question. If you are a monogamous man and you stick around to help raise your kids, you are giving them a much better chance in life than a man who runs off after other women.

For a woman the main point of a monogamous relationship is that her man won't abandon her to raise kids on her own with no financial support. For this she forgoes the pleasures of having sex with other men. Having sex, as there is no other benefit she is likely to get from it, other than imagining these men care about her in some way. She will mostly be having sex with the man above spreading his seed. She can't have lots of children for a few quick shags in the same way a man can. This is why there isn't the same term for a slut for a man. It always puzzled me a bit that women were willing to risk pregnancy for a quick shag with a promiscuous guy. Very few guys - at least historically - will marry a similarly promiscuous woman.

Since the advent of contraception and social welfare, it has levelled the playing field somewhat for women. Now a woman can sleep around all she wants without fear of pregnancy. However she still can't reproduce without going through a 9 month pregnancy - but at least the state will pay for her and her offspring if she does.

Soooo .... monogamy works mostly when there are children involved.

professore · 13-11-2018 12:55pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

I never said the strongest best looking men wouldn'tget most women. I would agree with much of what said in the book "Sex at Dawn". Group sex would be much more common.

I haven't read that book ... must add it to my reading list.

could you handle a polyamory relationship

Comments