Jump to content

Is Monogamy Over-Rated or Under-Rated, or something else?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3313 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Monogamy is a collar--just like the Gor collar. 

QUOTE “I'd think after 35 years, sex would/could get pretty boring especially in our modern society where people can communicate with so many more people than they could say even twenty years ago.”

There is only one reason sex exists. So that the human animal makes babies and continues to exist. It was made pleasurable so we do it. Hormones and body chemicals also make sure the sex drive is there so that we procreate and make babies. That’s it. Sex has zero importance as anything else besides a way to make sure humans replace themselves before they die.

QUOTE “So, what is your feedback about monogamy and it's importance to the human soul, or if you don't believe in a soul - the human being or heart? Or just your being or heart, how important is monogamy to you?... and could you explain why or why not it is important to you? “

Humans become emotionally attached to those they have sex with. Modern sociology has proven children need their mother and father around to grow up in an emotionally healthy way. So knowing all that, its obvious we were designed to be monogamous since the emotional health of out offspring requires a stable monogamous parent situation. Also, since humans become emotionally attached to those we have sex with, to have multiple partners would hurt anyone you have bonded with through sex.

QUOTE “I understand about the jealousy of the human heart, btw. But what does a couple do if the sex starts to get boring after so many years together?”

Sex exists to make babies. The optimal time to make babies is when you reach peak heath and maturity around age 20. Nature didn’t intend for 70 year olds to make babies or to be into sex. Thus, chemicals designed to make you want sex decrease and females lose the ability to conceive as your body ages.

QUOTE “I'm glad I never got attached at age 16! That's about all I can say!”

Pleasure and pain are two sides to the same coin.

QUOTE “Also men are encouraged to have more partners and more sex before they settle down, but not women. Women are still somewhat expected to be that saint in the living room and the devil in the bedroom with one man, and not too much more than that when it comes to sexuality. “

When looking for a life time partner to make children with, one would obviously look for one that has a maturity about sex and is not addicted to sexual excitement or pleasure. The best lifetime sexual partner would be one who is not attached to or addicted to sexual pleasure. Since you become emotionally bonded to those you have sex with, the best partner would be one who does not have sex with others as this would hurt you emotionally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If I may ask, what do you mean by this word sic with the brackets and how does it relates to your post?

All I could find on sic was this wiki, which really didn't explain a whole lot as to why you put this [sic] in your post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

Could u explain further, or does your [sic] merely mean eluding to 'humor' for you? "

I've read this wiki entry carefully and I'm guessing its use on the forum is as follow:

 

"The application of sics with the intent to disparage has been called the "benighted use" because it creates a "false sense of superiority" in its users.)

 

In reality we are all getting on with our busy lives, we get sabotaged by spell check, many ,any people joining in here aren't native English speaking folks, and spelling these days says more about ones compulsive nature and stickler for tradition then the quality of one's ideas and observations.  So, although I might have also been guilty of using [sic] here once or twice myself, those using it to intimidate or disparage others can [sic] it up their R's.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nacy Nightfire wrote:

"If I may ask, what do you mean by this word sic with the brackets and how does it relates to your post?

All I could find on sic was this wiki, which really didn't explain a whole lot as to why you put this [sic] in your post?



Could u explain further, or does your [sic] merely mean eluding to 'humor' for you? "

I've read this wiki entry carefully and I'm guessing its use on the forum is as follow:

 

"The application of sics with the intent to disparage has been called the "benighted use" because it creates a "false sense of superiority" in its users.)

 

In reality we are all getting on with our busy lives, we get sabotaged by spell check, many ,any people joining in here aren't native English speaking folks, and spelling these days says more about ones compulsive nature and stickler for tradition then the quality of one's ideas and observations.  So, although I might have also been guilty of using [sic] here once or twice myself, those using it to intimidate or disparage others can [sic] it up their R's.

You presume to know why someone would use [sic].  Perhaps you are projecting?  I would not presume to know why you used it once or twice yourself.  Sometimes a [sic] is just a [sic].

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You presume to know why someone would use [sic].  Perhaps you are projecting?  I would not presume to know why you used it once or twice yourself.  Sometimes a [sic] is just a [sic]."

I both presume AND project..as do you Venus.  We cannot do otherwise on the forum since we know so little about each other.  My meaning has been misunderstood, twisted and misinterpreted on numerous occasions, no doubt you've had similar experiences.  It goes with the territory.  Sometimes a [sic] IS a sic and sometimes it is more than that. Thus the use as I described being included on Wiki. I know what its use can convey and I can read the tone of it.  Just like the tone of the sentence "you presume to know". :matte-motes-smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sic thing doesn't seem to necessary to me except for journalists.  I think sic in fact was created for journalists, not particularly forum bloggers or 2D platform texters.  I love making up coined words as you can see.

About my spelling, yeah I'm pretty much multi-tasking a lot, and don't really care all that much what peeps think of my spelling for the most part as I have dyslexia, and this will always effect my writing, so I do my best under the circumstances, not to mention RL comes first, and it is a busy life. 

I also love to write fresh off the top of my head and enjoy reading posts that seem a little more fresh rather than something so perfect like it was edited for a book or publishing.  I prefer to just go with the flow of my thoughts and words and don't mind if my dyslexia shows.  Einstein was dyslexic.  Dyslexia has nothing to do with intelligence, btw.   Dyslexics usually have a higher than average IQ as a matter of fact.  So perfect spelling in reality has nothing to do with intelligence. 

Sorry, I got off topic in my own started thread.  :smileytongue:

Conclusion:  Proper spelling is over-rated because in reality it has nothing to do with intelligence at all.  America has 1 in 5 children with some type of learning disability.   My IQ is in fact higher than the average and this is why I often wonder why so many people on forums complain about spelling?   Haven't they ever met a dyslexia before? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nacy Nightfire wrote:

"You presume to know why someone would use [sic].  Perhaps you are projecting?  I would not presume to know why you used it once or twice yourself.  Sometimes a [sic] is just a [sic]."

I both presume AND project..as do you Venus.  We cannot do otherwise on the forum since we know so little about each other.  My meaning has been misunderstood, twisted and misinterpreted on numerous occasions, no doubt you've had similar experiences.  It goes with the territory.  Sometimes a [sic] IS a sic and sometimes it is more than that. Thus the use as I described being included on Wiki. I know what its use can convey and I can read the tone of it.  Just like the tone of the sentence "you presume to know". :matte-motes-smile:

/me smiles

There was no implied 'tone' to my sentence, rather, I was responding to the definition you plucked out of wiki which is a rather negative one.  The one that I stated in my post to Maya re: feral cats was a 'just the facts, ma'am' type of definition.

Nothing more..nothing less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dyslexia has nothing to do with intelligence, btw.   Dyslexics usually have a higher than average IQ as a matter of fact.  So perfect spelling in reality has nothing to do with intelligence. "

Spelling is an odd thing.  My husband is dyslexic and is a highly intelligent, creative person.  AND, he can't spell, but he can proof-read something someone else wrote and point out misspellings.   It's uncanny.   As for myself, I've been teased by my family since I was a child for my "creative spelling", yet when my husband asks me to spell words, I've discovered I can do so correctly if I just quickly spell the word out loud without allowing myself to think about it. If I try to write the same word down on paper, I'll make spelling errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"/me smiles

There was no implied 'tone' to my sentence, rather, I was responding to the definition you plucked out of wiki which is a rather negative one.  The one that I stated in my post to Maya re: feral cats was a 'just the facts, ma'am' type of definition.

Nothing more..nothing less."

 

Venus, if you read carefully, I was not  referring to your  own use of [sic].  You were personalizing my posting, and in fact PROJECTING into it your own use of the word, when in reality my posting was clearly directed to the Mayalily's  post #13 directed to Storm on the topic of what he might mean by his use of [sic].  Check back at who I was replying to and the quote I included.

When you refer to a definition that I "plucked out of wiki"  there is an absolute tone of defensiveness and condescension.   And yes. I quoted something that had a negative tone because rather then "pluck" the entire article, I culled the bit that mattered in this instance.  The forum has its share of snarky, condenscending, facetious communication.  To suggest otherwise is a bit pollyannaish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, often we do become attached to those we have sex with, but not always.  Sometimes it was a one night stand, even though it might have been an incredible sexual one. 

And often times in a long term relationship that attachment even though sex and babies were created seems to fade over time; the attachment factor that is, fades.  Or to put perhaps more accurately, the attachment has peaks and valleys which is normal for every romantic relationship.  I say that because my family relationships do not seem to have these peaks and valleys.  I think I have always loved my Mom and Dad the same way just about every day, and my sibblings too (other than when I didn't get my paper dolls or something - tantrums). 

I am in a monogamous relationship though and have no intention of changing that. 

I'm just ruminating about the double standards in regards to women's sexuality and their freedom of choice and also how society views them especially with birth control now for what almost 50 years. 

It's like a man:  Normal.

Woman:  Hang her or snub her or declare her unfit even at times. 

I find it bizarre because this monogamy thing is oft times a front, a facade of society at large.  It's an illusion of a deluded society.  

And, I highly doubt Storm knows how many powerful women have misters. 

This is not to say that you have many good points in your post because you do, as do others who have contributed to this thread.

I think monogamy is over-rated because of these fronts, not because I want out of my relationship with my boyfriend. 

ETA:  For people who don't know, the Mick Jagger thing is a running joke here; there are a lot of jokes that people may stumble upon in SL forums, and get confused about.  Sorry about that if you got confused there with the Jagger jokes, but he is pretty darn sexy. 

And another thing that bugs me about this monogamy or nothing attitude is I think forgiveness is far, far better than divorce, especially if the love is still mutual.  However for most people a fling or another means just one thing: divorce.   Adios.  Bye.  It's over.   I think it's better to work it out and forgive and to understand these peaks and valleys of a relationship because we are all going to have them. 

I often wonder why it's about divorce rather than forgiveness. ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monogamy for women was invented when men wanted to be sure of the paternity of their children. The Biblical definition of adulatory was a woman having sex with a man who was not her husband or a man having sex with another man's wife, because at this time women were viewed as chattel. (In many countries they still are.) Socially, a man has pretty much always been allowed to have sex with other women besides his wife, particularly if he was discrete about it.

When birth control became more widely available in the 1960s, Western society started to view sexual mores from a more sexually egalitarian perspective, which was in some ways similar to how they were viewed in pre-patriarchal societies. As long as people took care of the children they were raising, society didn't care if people practiced serial monogamy or polygamy (either polyandry or polygyny).

Now we live longer than people ever did before, we have better birth control & better treatments for most STDs. The reasons to be monogamous have thus changed from practical social ones to personal emotional ones. I don't think it's natural for humans to want to have sex with only one person for their whole life, so most people now practice either serial monogamy or "cheat" a few times during their relationship.

Some people try having open or polyamorous relationships, but these tend to be tricky to navigate, since emotions are not so easy to control as people would like to believe. The more people involved in a relationship, the more complicated they get & the more conscious work its members have to put into the relationship. Even among swingers, there is a saying that 2 +2 = 3 + 1, because people can't regulate their behavior with rules when their emotions get involved. 

I think monogamy is thus a nice ideal for most people to aim for, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to never get bored & never stray.  Ideally people should have clear rules for their relationships & should abide by those rules  If they feel those rules aren't working for them, then they should be able to negotiate new ones.  I don't think one set of rules will ever work consistantly for everyone, which is what traditional monogamy assumes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Some other human populations who haven't undergone this selection for social monogamy still practice polygyny (multiple wives) and sometimes polyandry (multiple husbands). It is more common in environments with an abundant food supply, such as rainforests, where women, who are typically gatherers rather than hunters, can easily provide for themselves and their children without male help."

 

The only populations I can think of that regulary practiced polyandry were the Inuit & people in the Himalayas (I can't recall their name). Both of these environments are very harsh, so perhaps it made sense for 2 men to share a wife in harsh environments and for one man to have 2 or more wives in an easier environment?  If the man is the primary provider of food & is more likely to die in a harsh evironment, then having a second husband to provide for the children makes sense. In a harsh environment, there is also an advantage in reducing total birth rates, which would be the case when 2 men share a wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is only one reason sex exists. So that the human animal makes babies and continues to exist. It was made pleasurable so we do it. Hormones and body chemicals also make sure the sex drive is there so that we procreate and make babies. That’s it. Sex has zero importance as anything else besides a way to make sure humans replace themselves before they die."

 

I disagree.  Humans are a fairly complicated species.  If the only reason we had sex was to procreate, we'd probably only have sex when we're fertile, like other mammals coming into heat.  Primates, however, have sex even when they're not fertile & with same sex partners, which unions obviously won't produce offspring.  Human women are still interested in having sex long after menopause, though the desired frequency will usually be less.  Bonobo chimps will have sex with pretty much any other bonobo, regardless of gender, and are coincidentally the only other species that mates face to face.

It's been suggested by some anthropologists that humans mate face to face & even when they're not fertile because sex serves to bond couples emotionally to each other.  With the extended childhood of humans, ensuring 2 parents would be together to raise children over an extended period of time became crucial.  I think humans can be expected to live well beyond their fertile period for a similar reason.  Because humans have to learn so much that is not instinctual in order to survive, an older generation of grandparents could help raise the younger generation and could teach knowledge they'd learned over many years.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Persephone Emerald wrote:

 

The only populations I can think of that regulary practiced polyandry were the Inuit & people in the Himalayas (I can't recall their name). Both of these environments are very harsh, so perhaps it made sense for 2 men to share a wife in harsh environments and for one man to have 2 or more wives in an easier environment?  If the man is the primary provider of food & is more likely to die in a harsh evironment, then having a second husband to provide for the children makes sense. In a harsh environment, there is also an advantage in reducing total birth rates, which would be the case when 2 men share a wife.

There are also tribes in the Amazon Rainforest and in South Africa that practice polyandry. I didn't know that it was common among the Inuit too. In that case, I could also imagine that the goal is to secure multiple male providers, seeing that the Inuit hunt a lot and have little to gather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that you bring up the Bible because I'd say a lot of this has to do with the Bible.  I do believe Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of hard hearts.  So do Christians follow Moses or Jesus.  I pick Jesus.  Jesus didn't see divorce as a good thing because it did leave women alone and with children.  I think what Jesus was saying to the men there, you helped create these children too, don't just dump them or your wife who needs help.  Women have been able to be a little more self supporting in our modern world now due to welfare programs for single Mom's or those with absent fathers, but welfare is changing in America, because a lot of women were getting pregnant just for the support welfare could provide them, which isn't a good reason to have a child in the first place, so America's welfare programs are being cut there.  I think welfare only provides for the first child now, as there is birth control available to women who cannot support children on their own.  Welfare used to cover a multitude of children out of wedlock, but it does not now. 

There are some Christians who believe Jesus took care of it all for them and that the Bible is a record of a events and a record of events of the early churches as well, and the best thing the writer called Paul ever did was to say to the church, allow a widow or widower to remarry.  There most certainly must have been some hard hearts back then because a widow couldn't even remarry without subjection to ridicule, so the writer Paul had to spell it out for them?   Anyhow, Paul put a stop to that nonsense because our marriages our not eternal.  Jesus explained that himself as he said people with not be given in marriage nor marry at the resurrection.  There is no reason to be possessive of a mate after they have passed away because in Christianities teaching there is nothing about the need for procreation after we die from this world and that we will also have a changed body; a changed body, meaning not a procreative one because we will be 'like' the Angels, and Angels do not procreate, they just are.  Also, a lot of Jesus' teachings were before the crucifixion.  Jesus' teaching were a preparation for what was to come, but after the crucifixion the Leviticus laws were done and buried, and it was finished, as well as the law being simpled into 'love God and love neighbor' and that those two things fulfill the law.  The rest of the new testament is a recording of the early problems in the early churches.  As far as adultery being one of the commandments, that has to do with keeping an oath as marriages were sworn under God, so breaking that oath to keep this person always is what shatters this for God as it's a pledge to be faithful, but does faithful mean sexually failthful only?  I don't think so, as when the commandments were written, men already had multiple wives. 

@ Ishy, about women having multiple providers, I can't exactly say I would have a pity party if I had multiple providers.  lol  But do relationships with multiple people in them have problems?  I've heard not so much because it was their choice.  As I got old, I wouldn't mind this large type family because it's about people helping people and a larger pool with which to receive that help and support from.  So I can't exactly say I would be sad about having multiple providers.  It could be quite thrilling actually in more ways than one, but my statements do not mean that's where I am heading in my life.  I have a pretty great guy, so I can't complain there. 

But Jesus took care of it all for me.  He's perfect.  None of us ever will be. 

I'd also like to see something in my country called Civil Partnerships and Church Marriage.  There are a lot of people who don't want to marry inside the church as they believe the temple is inside them and not in a building.  There should be government civil partnerships and church marriage, imo.  There should be a choice here.  I'd rather go into a civil partnership myself as I have no desire for a church marriage, as I believe church resides in my heart, not a place, and "church" can be held with just two people.  Jesus spelled that one out too. 

I think the time has come for grown adults to be able enter into legal mutual consenting partnerships of their own choice, and let religious marriage be religious marriage. 

Okay, getting off my soap box now.  But to your point, yes I'd say the Bible has a lot to do with this, as do differing interpretations of the Bible itself. 

But for me to have multiple providers and mates, I truly cannot say I'd cry about it.  It does not sound like an awful experience in the slightest to me. 

ETA:  As far as the Koran (I've never read it) so I have no idea why women are still treated like property, and most middle eastern marriages are still arranged.  However, in some Muslim sects, the men get eight virgins when they die.  Talk about men getting everything in that religion, eh? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about this very topic a few days ago, weird huh!

I didnt grow up in a tradition 2 parent family and so saw the idea of 2 people being together forever as behind the times and frankly a bit boring. I was a liberal teenager and didnt ever see myself ever settling down with just one person. Famous last words. I met my current partner when I was 18 and we have been together now for 11 yrs. We have an open relationship (something I insisted upon when we got together), yet for the past 4 years we have both choosen to be monogamious.

I think it is the grass is always greener scenario, you want what you cant have, and because we can have other people we know that we are happiest with each other. Whilst I have been with other people, it was never a one night stand and I always had feelings for my lovers, yet dispite this there have been occassions when I wished I was in my husbands arm not theirs.

Why am I telling you this? well I think the point is that it doesnt matter if you are monogamous or not its the person you choose to be with and the relationship you have, honesty, stability and trust are things that are important, not the fact you have sex with no one else. If you cant be honest and open about what you need in a relationship (whether it be the opportunity to experiance sexual freedom or something else like the desire to have a career and not be a house wife for example) then it doesnt matter if you are monogamous or not, the relationship is doomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:

 

I think the time has come for grown adults to be able enter into legal mutual consenting partnerships of their own choice, and let religious marriage be religious marriage. 


 

Fortunately, in the U.S., most people can choose between a church wedding and a civil one (in the courthouse).  I say 'most' because only a handful of states allow gays to 'marry' and have that union recognized by other states. I believe over time this 'barrier' will fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, there is this option for most, but polygamy is not included, not yet anyhow.  I'm sure it will be eventually, along with LGBT rights of consenting adults.  

What I'm saying is, even though I'm heterosexual, I'd prefer it not be called marriage, but rather a government enabled partnership. I was speaking about definitions in my post because it's still called marriage, even though it's a civil one.  So you missed my point there. 

Oh, I like this definition.  Government enabled partnerships.  Perhaps we could call them GEP's for short. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3313 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...