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 3317 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. 


Storm Clarence wrote:


Mayalily wrote:

No, we really don't because these unions do not include polygamy which would have something to do with the topic of monogamy.

Every woman in a polygamous relationship is monogamous.  

That depends on which kind of polygamy we're talking about :) In case of polgyny, you're correct. But in case of polyandry, it should be "every man" instead of "every women". And it gets really complicated when we enter the territory of adelphic polyandry (several men sharing their wives), polyamory, and polygamous group marriage (such as the Hawaiian "punalua" family model) :matte-motes-nerdy:

ETA: Where are our feminists? Somebody ought to point out the blatant androcentrism behind the Western tendency to conflate polygamy with polygyny :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do?  It's interesting to see that Storm is a mind reader about everyone involved in a polygamous relationship, and a mind reader about powerful women, too. 

Now I'll agree with you that some or perhaps most women are monogamous in polygamous relationships because in certain countries, the women remain faithful or else they would be killed.  It's a matter of their life and nothing else. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue the merits of marriage or downside of divorce from a Christian perspective, because I'm not Christian, but I will argue a few points of history & fact with you.

In the Jewish tradition of Biblical times women could not ask for a divorce & were considered unmariagable if their husband divorced them. Thus a woman who was divorced by her husband was left with little recourse for survival except prostitution. In this society, forbidding a man to divorce his wife was a kindness to her, since he would have to support her. However, he could still beat her & take another wife if he wished. During the Old Testament period, a widow & her children were to be provided for by her husband's family. If she had no children, her brother-in law was obliged to have sex with her, so that she would have a child that would be seen as her dead husband's heir. At the time of Jesus's preaching, Roman marriage laws were more lenient about divorce & remarriage than Jewish laws were, but there were different rules for people of different social classes.  An upper class Roman woman could divorce & remarry pretty easily, as long as her family supported the idea. Such remarriages were not uncommon as upper class families used their daughters for social & political maneuvering.

In America, most single women do not rely on welfare to support themselves and their children. In America most women, whether married or single, work along side men in the workforce.  When a couple divorces, if the woman does not work or makes considerably less than the man does, he may be required by the legal system to pay her an allowance. When they have children, he will usually be required to pay child support. If she happens to make more money that he does, she might be required to pay him an allowance, but this is rare. If he's a real jerk or doesn't have a steady job, he may refuse to pay support for his children & ex-wife. In such cases, the woman usually has a difficult time trying to collect from him & may have to rely on welfare assistance to support her children & herself.

In the USA, marriage may be be performed as a religious or a civil ceremony. Either way, it's legally recognized, as long as the person performing the ceremony is licensed to do so. Traditionally, a Justice of the Peace (a civil office) or a captain of a ship at sea have just as much license to marry people as the representative of a recognized religion has.

Each state in the USA sets it's own standards about who may or may not marry, though the Federal government has stepped in to override state law when it was seen as unconstitutional. For many years it was against the law in most states for people to marry if they were not of the same racial background. These laws were overturned by the Federal government. Now a few states have allowed civil unions or marriage between same-sex partners, though most still don't. Times change, social views change, & our laws change with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Every woman in a polygamous relationship is monogamous. "

 

This is not technically true. Polygamy means marriage to more than one person. Since the practice of a man being married to multiple woman has been common in several better know religions (Taoism, Buddhism, early Judaism, Islam & Mormonism for instance) we tend to equate polygamy with polygyny (marriage to more than one woman).

However, I have known people in pagan polygamous relationships in which 1 woman had 2 husbands, 1 woman had a husband & a wife, and 1 man has a husband, had a girlfriend & now has a boyfriend. When people have fluid ideas about relationships, the forms their relationships end up taking are not always simple or predictable.

Edit to add

(A liberal pagan feminist giving voice to an alternative point of view)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:

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. 

Unfortunately, by not calling it marriage, it's automatically not equal. I, for one, will not be satisfied until homosexuals have the same rights heterosexuals do to marry the partner of their choice. Of course, you're right... that has little to do with the subject at hand and nothing what-so-ever to do with polygamy. So I won't expound any further on the matter, but you did bring it up. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


Storm Clarence wrote:

Men will be men.  

I agree, and more to the point 'polygamous' relationships do contain monogamous spouses; what ever side of the coin your on.    

 

I hate to be a nitpick, but.... not necessarily :) In case of adelphic polyandry or polygamous group marriage, all spouses get to be polygamous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what the German government did.
"Yeah, alright, you LGBT folks can get married too. We'll just call it 'life partnership' instead of marriage, otherwise it's all the same. Now shut up already and get m... erm... get life partnershipped. Of course you won't get the same tax breaks and privileges as married people either, but who cares, right? You're still totally equal."

It's all the more sad because in Germany, a country with 60% atheists, all marriages are civil unions. Around here, priests, shamans and witches don't have the authority to marry anybody, and a church wedding is nothing but a meaningless ceremony. Separation of state and church, we has it (more or less anyway). Which means that this has never been a religious issue in Germany and nothing should stand in the way of social equality. But our government has made it pretty clear that the sole purpose of marriage is to subsidize breeders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not equal in the wording, but to my knowledge it is equal or equivalent to marriage.  I haven't researched it, but I did a quick read on the wiki on civil unions and it said they are equal.  It could be just the wording is different.  But, who knows about wiki's these days and how correct they actually are. 

I'd rather have a choice to be called married or in a government enabled partnership simply because that's what I would prefer. Although the term government enabled partnerships does not exist.  I just made that up.  But it sounds good to me, but I am not saying that LGBT should ONLY be allowed something called government enabled partnerships; that's not up to me, that's up to the constitution and the Supreme Court, imo, and then ultimately the couple themselves.   

I think marriage with the husband and wife thing is becoming archaic.  At least for me it is.  And I also would prefer to keep my faith private and thus would prefer something just called a union that is recognized by the government, that would keep the church out of dictating my faith and how I want to personally view my faith as I also see the husband/wife titles archaic, but that does not count me out of being a following of Jesus Christ.  I just view my faith as a personal journey and really want nothing to do with organized religion neither in the long or short run. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:

Well it's not equal in the wording, but to my knowledge it is equal or equivalent to marriage.  I haven't researched it, but I did a quick read on the wiki on civil unions and it said they are equal.  It could be just the wording is different.  But, who knows about wiki's these days and how correct they actually are. 

Alas, civil unions of LGBT couples in the USA are not really equal in practice. They are not recognized beyond state borders, afford no federal protections, don't enjoy all the legal benefits of a marriage, and hospitals are reluctant to acknowledge these unions and grant visitation rights.

But even if the legal status of civil unions was 100% equal, the different label can only serve to single out LGBT people and brand them as abnormal. People shouldn't have to out themselves each time they're asked for their marital status. In most cases, their sexual orientation is none of the inquirer's business. Especially children shouldn't have to tell their peers "my parents aren't married, they are in a civil union". This creates a social stigma that is as unnecessary as caste symbols on people's foreheads or sewn-on cloth patches with religious icons.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Alas, civil unions of LGBT couples in the USA are not really equal in practice. They are not recognized beyond state borders, afford no federal protections, don't enjoy all the legal benefits of a marriage, and hospitals are reluctant to acknowledge these unions and grant visitation rights.

But even if the legal status of civil unions was 100% equal, the different label can only serve to single out LGBT people and brand them as abnormal. People shouldn't have to out themselves each time they're asked for their marital status. In most cases, their sexual orientation is none of the inquirer's business. Especially children shouldn't have to tell their peers "my parents aren't married, they are in a civil union". This creates a social stigma that is as unnecessary as caste symbols on people's foreheads or sewn-on cloth patches with religious icons.

agree_smiley.gif

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I prefer monogamy, I think the intimacy and trust makes for better sex.  I don't think the genders of the partners has any relevance and I hate that same sex unions are discriminated against in my country (or anywhere else for that matter).  Alas, one partner forever and ever doesn't happen very often anymore.  Maybe it's the longer life spans or maybe it's the decay of modern civilization, I don't' know.  So anyway, I still prefer monogamy, serial in my case since my marriage failed after 24 years of limited success. I really don't feel the need to impose my personal choices upon the rest of society, my motto is live and let live.  As for my partner and I, we've made our choice and are happy with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Katt.  I know from experience that you can have a great deal of intimacy and trust in an open relationship, not to say that it's been easy, but it's definitely been worth it.  Along with those two, I have to add that communication and respect are equally as important.  As you say, it is a personal choice, what works for some will not work for others.

I honestly believe that people are just made up differently, have different aspirations in life and expect different things from the people with which they form such a close, personal bond... you can't really say one thing is good for everyone and not be disingenuous, as some try to do.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need one partner and not 2,3,4,5....or whatever more partner at the same time. How? I search and not just pick up the first that walks trough the door. I don't think it is necessary to be a forever lasting relationship....because that needs a lot of luck. People who get partnered and then cheat are weak in my opinion and should rather stay single instead of hurting others feelings. If anyone ever will cheat on me.....he and his bitch should run before I get close to them.....:matte-motes-evil-invert:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Syo Emerald wrote:

I just need one partner and not 2,3,4,5....or whatever more partner at the same time. How? I search and not just pick up the first that walks trough the door. I don't think it is necessary to be a forever lasting relationship....because that needs a lot of luck. People who get partnered and then cheat are weak in my opinion and should rather stay single instead of hurting others feelings. If anyone ever will cheat on me.....he and his bitch should run before I get close to them.....:matte-motes-evil-invert:

 

I don't think that anybody enters a relationship with the deliberate intention to cheat on their partner. It usually works something like this: During the first year(s) of their relationship, a young couple is in love and everything is perfect. But they're both putting career before family and decide to wait a few years before having children. At some point, she realizes that he is doing everything wrong. He leaves the toilet seat up, squeezes the middle of the toothpaste tube, always buys the wrong brand of coffee, everything about him just infuriates her. On top of that, he is no longer "romantic".

And yet his behavior has not changed at all. He always had these annoying little habits, but she used to overlook them. What really happened is that her female instincts kicked in and started to scream "this is the wrong mate! You're not pregnant yet, which can only mean that he shoots blanks!" (Her DNA and her limbic system don't know anything about birth control). "Go and find another mate that will get you pregnant while you still have the looks and the chance!" The fault that she finds in him is simply her way of rationalizing this biological message. 

He, on the other hand, is tired of her constant nagging and complaining. He also feels that she has grown cold and abrasive. And for a good reason, because she's not inclined to have sex with him anymore. Her instincts have decided that he is the wrong partner because he's obviously infertile, and there is no reason to waste time and energy on sex.

So naturally, he goes and has sex with his secretary, who is delighted to find herself desired by a mate of higher social status. The fact that his wedding ring proves his willingness to commit to and support a woman is a welcome bonus, and she tries everything to talk him into getting a divorce from his uncaring wife.

At the same time, his wife -- who feels so neglected and uncared-for, even if she is the one with the constant migraine, but it's really all his fault in her mind because he totally fails to be "romantic" -- also starts a relationship on the side, driven by the deafening ticking of her biological clock. Probably with the pool boy (young and healthy, good genes) or with an older male of higher social status than her husband, who is soooo romantic and really knows how to appreciate a woman. (He really isn't any different than her husband in that regard, but her instincts are telling her that he's perfect and she should trade up for him. So she views him through the same rose-tinted glasses that she once used to wear for her husband).

Both started out with the best intentions, but they didn't follow through with their biological program and nature took its course. That's why so many marriages and relationships are failing nowadays. We can't escape our DNA, which has been selected for the propensity to have a large number of offspring over the course of millions of years. Of course I'm not suggesting that we should start breeding at age 16 again, but it will take at least a few thousand years until our instincts have come to match our current lifestyle (and considering the declining birth rates in the Western World, this will probably never happen).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess you couldn't handle that song

I've got a woman

Way over town, she's good to me?

I think Elvis sung that song and I could easily say if the lyric was changed to "I got an Elvis, way over town, he's good to me" that I'd be terribly unhappy and throw a pity party, but my rl bf might be unhappy about it.  So your point is understood, just don't go the Loranna Babitt (spelling?) route. 

I started this thread to try to find out while all the divorce, instead of forgiveness?

Even before I started this thread, the divorce rate was sitting at 50-60% so I had nothing to do with that, I promise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the divorce rate is not 50% as that implys half the people who get married get divorced. Actually most people married 30 or more years don't cheat and don't get divorced, like 90% of them, others who bail instead of working on problems marry and divorce multiple times... so that makes the statistics wrong....

example:

take 3 couples.... two stay married their whole lives and other couple gets married and divorced 4 times. the statistics would say 4 out of 6 marriages end in divorce - when really the statisic here is only 1 in 3 couples gets divorced - most statisics commonly quoted like the 50% divorce rate were found to be totally false later - that one researchers, Kinsley got his data interviewing people in bars in shady parts of towns

Link to post
Share on other sites


OceanBird wrote in part:

...

Actually most people married 30 or more years don't cheat ...

 

Of course that's what they will say when asked  :matte-motes-big-grin: I don't believe it. I think that most people who have been married that long have cheated on their partner at some point. Alas, it's impossible to get accurate data one way or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

I just need one partner and not 2,3,4,5....or whatever more partner at the same time. How? I search and not just pick up the first that walks trough the door. I don't think it is necessary to be a forever lasting relationship....because that needs a lot of luck. People who get partnered and then cheat are weak in my opinion and should rather stay single instead of hurting others feelings. If anyone ever will cheat on me.....he and his bitch should run before I get close to them.....:matte-motes-evil-invert:

 

I don't think that anybody enters a relationship with the deliberate intention to cheat on their partner. It usually works something like this: During the first year(s) of their relationship, a young couple is in love and everything is perfect. But they're both putting career before family and decide to wait a few years before having children. At some point, she realizes that he is doing everything wrong. He leaves the toilet seat up, squeezes the middle of the toothpaste tube, always buys the wrong brand of coffee, everything about him just infuriates her. On top of that, he is no longer "romantic".

And yet his behavior has not changed at all. He always had these annoying little habits, but she used to overlook them. What really happened is that her female instincts kicked in and started to scream "this is the wrong mate! You're not pregnant yet, which can only mean that he shoots blanks!" (Her DNA and her limbic system don't know anything about birth control). "Go and find another mate that will get you pregnant while you still have the looks and the chance!" The fault that she finds in him is simply her way of rationalizing this biological message. 

He, on the other hand, is tired of her constant nagging and complaining. He also feels that she has grown cold and abrasive. And for a good reason, because she's not inclined to have sex with him anymore. Her instincts have decided that he is the wrong partner because he's obviously infertile, and there is no reason to waste time and energy on sex.

So naturally, he goes and has sex with his secretary, who is delighted to find herself desired by a mate of higher social status. The fact that his wedding ring proves his willingness to commit to and support a woman is a welcome bonus, and she tries everything to talk him into getting a divorce from his uncaring wife.

At the same time, his wife -- who feels so neglected and uncared-for, even if she is the one with the constant migraine, but it's really all his fault in her mind because he totally fails to be "romantic" -- also starts a relationship on the side, driven by the deafening ticking of her biological clock. Probably with the pool boy (young and healthy, good genes) or with an older male of higher social status than her husband, who is soooo romantic and really knows how to appreciate a woman. (He really isn't any different than her husband in that regard, but her instincts are telling her that he's perfect and she should trade up for him. So she views him through the same rose-tinted glasses that she once used to wear for her husband).

Both started out with the best intentions, but they didn't follow through with their biological program and nature took its course. That's why so many marriages and relationships are failing nowadays. We can't escape our DNA, which has been selected for the propensity to have a large number of offspring over the course of millions of years. Of course I'm not suggesting that we should start breeding at age 16 again, but it will take at least a few thousand years until our instincts have come to match our current lifestyle (and considering the declining birth rates in the Western World, this will probably never happen).

Nice thought for younger ones. However, what about people who meet later in life?

Maybe one of them never married, maybe one of them had children but the marriage broke, maybe their partner died in an accident, or survived the separation.  According to yours, their biological program was more or less fulfilled.

So, if two such people happen to fall in love, it should at least no biological reproduction program should have any impact, as they have "done their due"?

 

Furthermore, if you suggest to "Breed" (jeez) as soon as possible, in todays society you get as lot of "Mother with 15-16, social offroad"-cases, and guys who just cant "take the resposibility". Sadly our society disnt make it easier for them either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3317 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...