Is monogamy social setup or 'our nature'

[sneez]

I think of this as social setup. I have not heard an argument that would show otherwise. Is there any research done on this?

Im asking in relation to our laws. (western). WHy is polygamy explicitly prohibited then? Isn't this pure religious demand?

 

[selfAdjoint]

In fact sociologists of the nineteenth century identified two stable patterns: patrilocality and matrilocality. Patrilocal marriage is like the biblical one; a man who can afford them has as many wives as local custom allows, which may be on, or four or as many as he wants. Sometimes a distinction is made between wives, whose children will share some way or other in the inheritance, and concubines, whose children won't.

The matrilocal organization is less familiar to us but was common in many places and has survived into the modern world in, for example micronesia. Women own the fixed property - agricultural land which is usually worked as simple gardens. Men are hunters or fishermen and live together in "long houses". Women take temporary lovers and paternity is not recorded, inheritance it theough the female line. As soon as little boys are fully toilet trained (or in other societies just before puberty), they are sent to live with the men in the long house.

As you can see neither of these long established and surviving patterns have anything to do with monogamy. Modern western monogamy has specific historic and cultural origins, all well recorded in our literature.

 

[Playdo]

I have observed that in the American Midwest women much enjoy the idea of a monogamous relationship. But I suspect it has to do with inate possessiveness and insecurities as much as social pressure or religious upbringing. My understanding is that men would tend to have more partners than women in our society and that the power of women causes most men especially married ones to have fewer partners than they would like. But, there is a difference between what appears on the surface of society and what goes on underneath the covers. Many many couples are venturing out into agreed upon flings and flirtations. In general reference to your question I would say that societies that require people to suppress very natural tendencies without outlet are going to manifest problems in some way. We are in a fuzzy dynamic here but cause and effect is still not a bad way to think about it. Tell people not to eat and we ll you get what I mean. So I tend to think that people have much incentive in various cultural and historical contexts both to be monogamous and not to be. Perhaps the most poignant model might be the one that describes humans as having wants and desires and then trying to work out ways within society (if possible) so satisfy those desires. If the desire is strong enough a person may do things that are not expected. But just as we are utility maximizers economically speaking (I'm being an economic imperialist) I think most people try to count the costs of pretty much every action and so if they have control over the wants they tend not to act if there is a high risk involved. Risk here is meant to be the probability of a consequence multiplied by the magnitude of it. If I am using estimates (sample means for instance) to size up a key risk factor is the standard deviation, which tells me there is some risk is assuming the mean response to any action. Some people will try to minimize that risk by feeling things out with many little steps before making the plunge. This is a dangerous temptation because the cost is not lessened but the chance of being caught seems somewhat less.

 

[Astronuc]

I think happily married men, as well as women, enjoy the security of monogamy, and IMO it is a very practical approach regarding a special relationship between a man and a woman who both enter voluntarily a special union.

Given the emotional commitment to the other person, it would be very difficult to have such a relationship with more than one person of the other gender simultaneously. Beyond jealousy, resource allocation would be difficult.

I often wonder what people mean by 'natural tendencies'. Are egotism, self-centeredness, selfishness natural tendencies - or simply the consequences of an undeveloped/underdeveloped person? What about self-discipline, empathy, compassion, generosity, beneficence - are these not natural tendencies?

 

[arildno]

It should be noted that in flocks of ordinary chimpanzees, the typical relations are that of an alpha male having sexual access to whichever females he wants to, whereas the other males try to have as much sex with the same females they can get away with (i.e, the alpha male not discovering it). (Occasionally, a stronger male will bond with a younger, weaker male in a sort of sexual mentor relationship).

New chimpanzee groups are formed when an alpha male breaks out of his group and takes with him a number of females wishing to join him, along with a few dependent males, often offspring.


For bonobo chimps, the situation is radically different in that it is the females that form the dominant sub-group, even if they are physically weaker than the males. They manage to do this in essentially two ways:
1. The band up together and require to eat their fill of fruits before anyone male is allowed access (and the sorority bonds are kept strong through intra-female sexual acts).

2. They "bribe" males with sex to fetch fruits for themselves and their offspring.

When bonobo groups meet, it may happen that a young female goes over to the group, bringing along her immature children. She then tries to find her place in the hierarchy of the new group by entering sexual relations with the dominant female(s) in the new group.


Thus, our closest ancestors show by their examples that monogamy is not at all "natural", but neither is it clear whether "polygyny" or "polyandry" were the original human condition.

 

[Astronuc]

I should also mention two practical benefits of monogamy: 1) little or not risk from sexually transmitted diseases, and 2) no surprised pregnacies.

While at univeristy, a number of friends contract STD's, but none knew the source, although there was a lot of finger pointing. Also, one friend actually got a girlfriend pregnant, and possibly another. Then there were several women who got pregnant, and there was one case where paternity was questionable, because the woman had sex with multiple partners.

I happily avoided all that.

 

[arildno]

I would like to add that as the humans' emotional life has nuanced over the ages, it by no means follows that the "original" societal&sexual mores will remain satisfactory to the individual. Thus, for example, the WEALTH of social relations that a harmonious monogamic relationship gives rise to between the two partners may in itself be more sought after than just the number of sexual encounters consisting of only the narrow social roles as sex partners.

 

[sneez]

From the posts i observe opinion that monogamy is a choice. Between two subjects.

Of casuse the law does not reflect that. For the law, monogamy is the enforced social set up.

Why if subjects want to set up polygamy thinking that it would provide more balanced relationship are prohibited to do so. If say a woman does not have a required sexual drive, or feel like pursuing career rather than taking care of kids, and etc, it could be 'healthier' to take upon another 'legal' wife with all the rights of a wife for the man, rather than to seek random temporary encounters, stuggle to impose his views what she should do, etc

Given the emotional commitment to the other person, it would be very difficult to have such a relationship with more than one person of the other gender simultaneously. Beyond jealousy, resource allocation would be difficult.

Of cause one may look at it this way. One may look at it another way: sharing of duties, chores, bigger income to the family, kids have another closer subject than a 'babysitter' to them, more time to do things for individual wife since she is not responsible for everything, etc

To stress my point, it should be a choice of all subjects concerned which way they would like it. Not imposed law, as far as i can conceive.

 

[Playdo]

It should be noted that in flocks of ordinary chimpanzees, the typical relations are that of an alpha male having sexual access to whichever females he wants to, whereas the other males try to have as much sex with the same females they can get away with (i.e, the alpha male not discovering it). (Occasionally, a stronger male will bond with a younger, weaker male in a sort of sexual mentor relationship).

New chimpanzee groups are formed when an alpha male breaks out of his group and takes with him a number of females wishing to join him, along with a few dependent males, often offspring.


For bonobo chimps, the situation is radically different in that it is the females that form the dominant sub-group, even if they are physically weaker than the males. They manage to do this in essentially two ways:
1. The band up together and require to eat their fill of fruits before anyone male is allowed access (and the sorority bonds are kept strong through intra-female sexual acts).

2. They "bribe" males with sex to fetch fruits for themselves and their offspring.

When bonobo groups meet, it may happen that a young female goes over to the group, bringing along her immature children. She then tries to find her place in the hierarchy of the new group by entering sexual relations with the dominant female(s) in the new group.


Thus, our closest ancestors show by their examples that monogamy is not at all "natural", but neither is it clear whether "polygyny" or "polyandry" were the original human condition.

I agree with the examples you gave, but humans are a different species at least so it is possible that our habits and genetic disposition are different enough that we are free to be considered in our own right.

 

[Playdo]

I think happily married men, as well as women, enjoy the security of monogamy, and IMO it is a very practical approach regarding a special relationship between a man and a woman who both enter voluntarily a special union.

Given the emotional commitment to the other person, it would be very difficult to have such a relationship with more than one person of the other gender simultaneously. Beyond jealousy, resource allocation would be difficult.

I often wonder what people mean by 'natural tendencies'. Are egotism, self-centeredness, selfishness natural tendencies - or simply the consequences of an undeveloped/underdeveloped person? What about self-discipline, empathy, compassion, generosity, beneficence - are these not natural tendencies?

I like that point. Without drawing in unprovable religious statements, a reasonable hypothesis might be that humans have the ability to be jealous hateful, ... and have self-discipline, empathy, compassion, generosity, beneficence,...

Many religious try to explain these things as opposing forces. Perhaps they are simply possibilities of response more or less deinfed by our genes our upbringing and our life history (current physical and psychological health) in a situational sense.

I would submit that bonobo culture is mostly learned and not genetic. In fact in human culture the trading of favors takes on many forms that are not strictly sexual. Good ole boys clubs for example are essentially of the same nature as the groups formed by males in chimps and females in bonobos. Are sexual favors traded in good ole boys groups? Why is it that ugly rich men can always have a beautiful girl on their arm?

"nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who above all else desire power." Galadriel

I do agree that virtue has long been understood to be of greater and more constant value than vice. Does virtue bring power, or satisfaction?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It seems to be setup both by culture and ecological restraints. Promiscuity is what chimpanzees engage in, but humans need to have 2 people at least to raise children, hence a need for 2 parents. Same with a lot of birds I believe. What humans do seem to engage in is serial monogamy - pretty much polygamy (polyandry and polygyny) but doing it one mate at a time over your lifetime. Anyhow, I think promiscuity would be the "natural" urge. That is, we engage in monogamous marriage but not necessarily monogamous sex.

To some extent, we are biologically designed for monogamy - Women really only have resources to lose, so they seem to just get upset rather than violent when they're "cheated on." Men, however, my potentially give resources to another man's child when their spouse cheats on them. Hence why men get so violent when women place their attentions on other men. Also accounts for infanticide (is that why step-fathers get a bad rap?)

 

[loseyourname]

Evolutionarily, I would think it makes sense that early humans developed a biological inclination toward temporary monogamy. At the very least, the father (or someone) needed to be around while the mother was pregnant and nursing, leaving her otherwise vulnerable.

The reality, though, is that humans never lived in isolated pairs, or nuclear families, the way they do today. They roamed in bands, and the community could easily take care of both mother and child without the necessity of paternal involvement, and certainly without the necessity for monogamous pair-bonding. I would think there are archaeological studies done by those who know more than I do that can demonstrate in some way the social bonds formed by typical humans, but the question of whether these developed biologically or culturally is difficult to answer, because by the time human mating habits developed, the ability to transmit information culturally, and the behavioral plasticity to quickly adapt to ecological demands without waiting for biology to catch up, already existed in whatever protohumans we descended from. The only experimental setup I could think of to test the hypothesis would be to somehow examine the mating behaviors of all early humans, cross-culturally, and look for patterns, but even finding such a pattern would be more suggestive than confirmatory. There is certainly no such pattern of monogamy found cross-culturally today, and to the extent that patterns are found, history shows them owing as much to the cultural hegemony of intrusive peoples as they do to any intrinsic behavioral presets in the human brain.

 

[physics girl phd]

If say a woman does not have a required sexual drive, or feel like pursuing career rather than taking care of kids...

Can I have polyandry? Say if a man does not have a required sex drive or feels like pursuing a career rather than taking care of the kids...?

 

[sneez]

Can I have polyandry? Say if a man does not have a required sex drive or feels like pursuing a career rather than taking care of the kids...?

I would say that common sense dictates from knowing father and mother of a child, that polyandry is not desirable from this point of view.

 

[verty]

I would say that common sense dictates from knowing father and mother of a child, that polyandry is not desirable from this point of view.

I lack this common sense because I don't follow. In a highly dangerous environment, I would think multiple males per female would make sense. What is this 'common sense'?

 

[sneez]

describe one situation that could occur in real world when multiple males per female is preferable?

Common sense- i may start another thread on this. I noticed there are educated ppl who are always ready to come up with situation that is possible only when humanity/person stops thinking, or/and some ridiculous condition occurs and call that 'my common sense' and give it as a proof that there is no such a thing as common sense or that it is highly relative.

I would agree that common sense changes from time to time, but its COMMON SENSE that each and every person thinks for and on his/her own about things before doing certain actions. So if in the light of new discovery/facts/knowledge some doings become wanted of change, common sense dictates it would be changed.

I detest even telling and educated person what a real life common sense is. We can engage in scientific/philosophic debate on the essense of the issue. BUt if I invoke common sense application in REAL LIFE situation i expect from all but donkey to know what I am talking about. Every one uses common sense in his/her daily life but when other person invokes it, behold!, we don't know what you mean.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

describe one situation that could occur in real world when multiple males per female is preferable?

Polyandry occurs in rural Tibet. Multiple men, usually brothers, take one wife. They live on large, low production farms that require labor. These farms can't be divided because they are so low producing, thus the solution is fraternal polyandry. They rotate on these positions: one brother provides labor for the farm, one brother tends the yak herd, and the other brother leaves home for long periods of time to trade. Thus, brothers take turns mating with the wife according to rotation to reduce burden. Of course, nobody prefers polygamy, but it's required in some instances, in others the alternatives are worse (hence why we have polygyny).

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I lack this common sense because I don't follow. In a highly dangerous environment, I would think multiple males per female would make sense. What is this 'common sense'?

There are theories that this is the how early human were structured and the reason for it - multiple males had to band together because they couldn't protect mates on their own.

From http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polyandry.html"University
The Nayar case discussed in another section represents a non-fraternal form in the sense that a woman engages in sexual relations and has children with several different men, any of whom may be called upon to acknowledge paternity.
Apparently, polyandry is also "sporadically distributed in Africa, Oceania, and Native America."

From Wiki
"Polyandry is a controversial subject among anthropologists. For instance, Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman points out that at least 20 tribal societies accept that a child could, and ideally should, have more than one father, referring to it as "partible paternity""

 

[sneez]

Thank you 0TheSwerve0 for the research. I am aware that polyandry exists and that it existed before. And its not point of my debate. Book 'sperm wars', even shows how human male sperm count accounts for the fact that we are not 'alpha' male society by 'nature'. [most of the sperms are not designed to fertilize the egg, but rather designed to fight off other sperms that might be present from other male to help the fertilizing sperms reach the egg].

I wanted to know from the other person, when would polyandry be preferable to polygamy in our society? (western). Knowing what we know of psychology or children, men, and women. THIS is the question i was replying to : "? Can I have polyandry? Say if a man does not have a required sex drive or feels like pursuing a career rather than taking care of the kids...?"

The fact that there are primitive societies in polyandry setup does not mean to take it as something to be learned from them. Just like some ppl are attracted to the same sex, does not mean that we all should strive to be like that. Its detrimental obviously to society. (please do not take it as hate speech, its common sense that same sex relationship is not preferable from point of view of population growth etc).

I gave very reasonable conditions when and why polygamy would be preferable given our situation. (careers, sex issues, psychology, psychiatry of children, men, and women., etc...)

 

[nannoh]

I think of this as social setup. I have not heard an argument that would show otherwise. Is there any research done on this?

Im asking in relation to our laws. (western). WHy is polygamy explicitly prohibited then? Isn't this pure religious demand?

Monagamy used to work well as a function of raising children. Today there are more parents leaving children with underpaid child care providers instead of raising their own children. Divorce rates are at 50 to 60% amongst those initially professing to be monagamous. When the interests of the child are the primary concern, monagamy offers the stable choice. Children of polygamous parents don't know who they are or who their parent is. Its a replication of conditions that occurred in the dark ages or in third world economies. Everyone thinks we're so hip to be able to have duo incomes and 3 lovers plus children. But attention deficit and several other detrimental conditions in today's children are increasing because of "ambitious parents" (using the term lightly).

 

[sneez]

Children of polygamous parents don't know who they are or who their parent is. Its a replication of conditions that occurred in the dark ages or in third world economies. Everyone thinks we're so hip to be able to have duo incomes and 3 lovers plus children. But attention deficit and several other detrimental conditions in today's children are increasing because of "ambitious parents" (using the term lightly).

I think this goes beyond the scope of question i asked but;

Im talking about legal marriage polygamy. Not a flink sex partners.
Children will know their mother and father, plus will have a very close person(s) to take care of them.

Im not talking about random sexual encounters, nor opposite sex roomates. I am talking of serious commitments, with aim and goal in life, taking opportunity of the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages.

My original question is about why, law would prohibit such a institution? Anyway, one is forced to put away children (to baby-sitters) because both parents need to have income and work. This way, children, can benefit from a parent, maybe both.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Thank you 0TheSwerve0 for the research. I am aware that polyandry exists and that it existed before. And its not point of my debate. Book 'sperm wars', even shows how human male sperm count accounts for the fact that we are not 'alpha' male society by 'nature'. [most of the sperms are not designed to fertilize the egg, but rather designed to fight off other sperms that might be present from other male to help the fertilizing sperms reach the egg].

Yep, hence why chimps have big balls and gorillas itty bitty ones.

I wanted to know from the other person, when would polyandry be preferable to polygamy in our society? (western). Knowing what we know of psychology or children, men, and women. THIS is the question i was replying to : "? Can I have polyandry? Say if a man does not have a required sex drive or feels like pursuing a career rather than taking care of the kids...?"

Why does it matter who answers the question? Is this a private debate?
Polyandry is a type of polygamy, which means multiple marriages. You are probably talking about polygyny.

I think the person was talking about polyandry in jest...what's your problem? Is it offensive to you that a woman (presumably) could enjoy having multiple husbands/lovers? Also, I think they make a valid point - it's just as ridiculous to assume a man wants to stay home and devote their entire lives to housework and kids as to assume a woman would.

The fact that there are primitive societies in polyandry setup does not mean to take it as something to be learned from them.

Why not, we evolved from them.

Just like some ppl are attracted to the same sex, does not mean that we all should strive to be like that.

Right, we should strive to do whatever we want; or is that not what you meant?

Its detrimental obviously to society. (please do not take it as hate speech, its common sense that same sex relationship is not preferable from point of view of population growth etc).

How is homosexuality detrimental to society? BTW, selection does not operate at the population level, so I don't see how it's of relevance for what's good for society. And actually, it can be good for population control, not that it needs any justification.

I gave very reasonable conditions when and why polygamy would be preferable given our situation. (careers, sex issues, psychology, psychiatry of children, men, and women., etc...)

Reasonable according to your cultural notions. Why is it unreasonable if a man wants to do it - say he wants to devote his life to work that makes little money and he needs someone to support him, but he doesn't mind if they take another husband? Or say a man wants a wife but isn't too interested in a sexual relationship (e.g. if he were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual" ). Or what if a woman can support multiple spouses and children and the men don't mind or would prefer this to other options?

Like I said before, nobody wants to be one of the multiple partners in polygamy - men or women.

 

[sneez]

think the person was talking about polyandry in jest...what's your problem? Is it offensive to you that a woman (presumably) could enjoy having multiple husbands/lovers? Also, I think they make a valid point

no problem son, its not offensive to me.
I showed that they make not valid point, and nobody has refuted it yet.

Why not, we evolved from them

? no point taken?

Right, we should strive to do whatever we want; or is that not what you meant?

With utmost absolutness not. We should not do whatever we want. Its very big blunder think everything is relative. It is not. Just because in afganistan women are treated the way they are treated we cannot say 'oh, its just the way they do things'. We are to change their setup! by reasonable means!

How is homosexuality detrimental to society? BTW, selection does not operate at the population level, so I don't see how it's of relevance for what's good for society. And actually, it can be good for population control, not that it needs any justification.

Ok, imagine entire population homosexuals. Then imagine entire population according to nature, ie opposite sex partners. If you do not see a difference on the impace on society, we cannot have discussion on this. I am not against homosexuals, i just hold opinion its not 'natural setup'. There is more to it. Pheromones, VNO, brain, etc. But trust me, I am not uneducated on this. I still call for upmost tollerance toward them,. thre rest-> Thats your opinion, i do not share it with you.
But that's another thread.

Reasonable according to your cultural notions. Why is it unreasonable if a man wants to do it - say he wants to devote his life to work that makes little money and he needs someone to support him, but he doesn't mind if they take another husband?

Its reasonable to all ppl who think. I dare you to explain to me in what points its unreasonalbe.

 

[nannoh]

I think this goes beyond the scope of question i asked but;

Im talking about legal marriage polygamy. Not a flink sex partners.
Children will know their mother and father, plus will have a very close person(s) to take care of them.

Im not talking about random sexual encounters, nor opposite sex roomates. I am talking of serious commitments, with aim and goal in life, taking opportunity of the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages.

My original question is about why, law would prohibit such a institution? Anyway, one is forced to put away children (to baby-sitters) because both parents need to have income and work. This way, children, can benefit from a parent, maybe both.

I see. You're more interested in the laws governing poly and monogamy and why the laws swing one way or the other. Laws have roots in the past. In the incidence of western civilization the past has been governed by the church. The church has decreed polygamy to be nasty and very bad therefore we have laws today that maintain that attitude.

Society is a reflection of the governing bodies and ideally visa versa. Large numbers of people hear an order or a news story and immediately believe it and conform to its subject matter without question. Hence, laws governing relationships have survived since the dark ages and before. And today the laws are still around although are being questioned more or less.

The laws the church picked up were from tribal law. You know like desert wandering types. They had laws that pertained to their survival. For some reason the laws they had about keeping several husbands or wives didn't make it into the laws of the church. Perhaps the church had no balls or einsie teensie ones like Gorrillas, not that I have had any first hand experience in this matter. There are a lot of children who could testify about the physiological nature of the church and its members.

 

[verty]

Its reasonable to all ppl who think.

If everyone were to steal, nothing would be produced. Of course, this would never happen because people would start producing for themselves at least because they need produce. Those that steal are supported by those that produce more than they need, but it could never happen that everyone steals.

So there will always be an equilibrium between these extremes. I think the same is true of homosexuality. I think probably the main reason that people choose to live as homosexuals to the degree that they do (I'm not saying that all homosexuals choose it) is because having children doesn't seem to mean much. The Earth has 6 billion people, what's one or two more worth? Also there's education to pay for and scarcity of jobs and, and, and...

Let's face it, children aren't what they used to be. Many people still choose it and they always will, but less choose it than would otherwise. And if you decide not to have children and you feel you have homosexual tendencies or would fit better within society as a homosexual, who is to say you shouldn't do so?

I think (and perhaps I'm wrong) that marriages don't work because families don't work. Modern people don't care that much for family life, it's that simple. In the past the family was important because families tended farmland or whatever, but families don't need to stick together anymore. This is the information age, the atomic family is out of date, obsolete.

Although it must be said that having children still seems to be seen as something good in at least one sense, but this sense is perverse because a family is seen as a sign of status. You "have" children but strangers take care of them and educate them, you give them money to make them happy because you don't want to get too emotionally involved. You "have" children in name only because that's all that counts.

And then do you wonder why marriages fail? Marriage is a lie. Most who stand in church (or wherever) and say "for better or worse" are lying through their teeth. Think about it. It's a meaningless ritual, just something one does.

So what is the problem? I think the problem is the unwillingness of people to accept change. Traditions are for old people who have lost the passion for life. The old conception of a family doesn't fit in our society. The old conceptions of love and of relationships don't fit in our society. I don't see it as sensible to speak of what is 'preferable' when what you consider to be preferable doesn't fit.

I see our growing independence as good. Liberating change is good, why resist it? Sexual liberation is simply the liberation of people's action from old dogmas, and I think that is a very good thing. In the same way, I see independence of women in society as an extremely good thing. Would you want to put women back in their traditional role? I think that would be heinously selfish.

I think independence and liberation are preferable.

 

[Astronuc]

And then do you wonder why marriages fail? Marriage is a lie. Most who stand in church (or wherever) and say "for better or worse" are lying through their teeth. Think about it. It's a meaningless ritual, just something one does.

Marriage is not a lie. It is a promise and a commitment. However, some people enter into marriage or make promises with good intent, but perhaps without thinking thoroughly regarding the promise, or perhaps without full internal commitment, hence the marriage fails and the promise is broken.

So what is the problem? I think the problem is the unwillingness of people to accept change. Traditions are for old people who have lost the passion for life. The old conception of a family doesn't fit in our society. The old conceptions of love and of relationships don't fit in our society. I don't see it as sensible to speak of what is 'preferable' when what you consider to be preferable doesn't fit.

Traditions kept without meaning are empty. However, traditions with meaning demonstrate dedication and discpline.

The traditional concept of love, real love, not just selfish desire or infatuation, most certainly do have a place in the modern world. I also value the friendships with my friends, many of whom are like brothers or sisters to me. And I keep in touch with my siblings.

I am in a monogamous relationship (marriage) with my wife of now 24+ years (we've been together for 26 years) by choice, and I prefer it that way. I am still with her and will be as long as either of us is alive, since I love her, and since I made a promise, and it is important for me to keep promises to the best of my ability. My parents just celebrated 50 years of marriage, my paternal grandparents were married more than 50 yrs, and my maternal grandparents were married over 45 yrs. My grandparents' marriages ended with the death of my grandmothers.

 

[arildno]

And, if I may say so, Astronuc shows himself as a thoroughly MODERN person.
We shouldn't make the mistake of old that what is "natural" for some modern people therefore ought to be the standard for other persons in our society.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well I had a 34 year totally monogamous marriage to my wife, ending only when death did us part. But that doesn't mean I think marriage is something other than a cultural tradition: a meme we have. The people who get all bent out of shape about gay marriage are mistaking the map for the territory.

 

[nannoh]

Marriage is not a lie. It is a promise and a commitment. However, some people enter into marriage or make promises with good intent, but perhaps without thinking thoroughly regarding the promise, or perhaps without full internal commitment, hence the marriage fails and the promise is broken.

Traditions kept without meaning are empty. However, traditions with meaning demonstrate dedication and discpline.

The traditional concept of love, real love, not just selfish desire or infatuation, most certainly do have a place in the modern world. I also value the friendships with my friends, many of whom are like brothers or sisters to me. And I keep in touch with my siblings.

I am in a monogamous relationship (marriage) with my wife of now 24+ years (we've been together for 26 years) by choice, and I prefer it that way. I am still with her and will be as long as either of us is alive, since I love her, and since I made a promise, and it is important for me to keep promises to the best of my ability. My parents just celebrated 50 years of marriage, my paternal grandparents were married more than 50 yrs, and my maternal grandparents were married over 45 yrs. My grandparents' marriages ended with the death of my grandmothers.

I am in support of your position Astronuc.

I would add that meaning must be defined to add meaning to your statement.

My personal definition of the word meaning would be that when a tradition holds meaning it holds the same sort of cohesive and synergistic efficency as a law of physics or universal law. A meaningful tradition results in the metered progress of an individual as well as the group and provides an environment for the continued growth and evolution of all those concerned.

A meaningful relationship is the result of two individuals who are able to stand on their own yet commit to creating a greater sum of two parts ( not just well looked after children but the synergistic results of "two heads that work well together are better than any other arrangement).

Lets consider the arrangement of sperm donors and recipients if you like. In this arrangement there is a huge compilation of information (DNA) being introduced to the other huge complilation of information of a woman. In the traditional marrage not only does the sperm go toward forming a child but the producer of the sperm and his additional/resulting information comes with it. In the case of sperm donations there is only the raw data introduced. There is a whole gamut of possibilities with this topic and I don't have time to go into them but one is the possiblility of siblings marrying siblings and the genetic anomalies that can result from that encounter. There are also the psychological effects of different DNA information interacting with DNA from an unknown and unknowable source.

 

[sneez]

I agree with the points added about commitment to monogamous relationship and the deep values one have better chances to develop toward just one person.

And in my opinion if a polygamous marriage was allowed, less than a fraction of 1% of population would probably take advantage of that. I am talking about countries like marroc, egypt, etc which are through their religion allowed multiple wifes, but you will search very very hard in normal population to find such marriages. 99,9% of those countries are monogamous marriages.

Traditions kept without meaning are empty. However, traditions with meaning demonstrate dedication and discpline.

Meaning is subject to change. As such as this implies, no traditions should be uphold just for a sake of tradition, but for a wisdom and meaning it has for current time.

The traditional concept of love, real love, not just selfish desire or infatuation, most certainly do have a place in the modern world. I also value the friendships with my friends, many of whom are like brothers or sisters to me. And I keep in touch with my siblings.

most certainly yes.

 

[Astronuc]

I would add that meaning must be defined to add meaning to your statement.

Good point.

My personal definition of the word meaning would be that when a tradition holds meaning it holds the same sort of cohesive and synergistic efficency as a law of physics or universal law. A meaningful tradition results in the metered progress of an individual as well as the group and provides an environment for the continued growth and evolution of all those concerned.

A meaningful relationship is the result of two individuals who are able to stand on their own yet commit to creating a greater sum of two parts ( not just well looked after children but the synergistic results of "two heads that work well together are better than any other arrangement).

Very good points. A meaningful relationship should entail a positive environment for both participants.

 

[nannoh]

Good point.

Very good points. A meaningful relationship should entail a positive environment for both participants.

So what is to be determined, in keeping with this thread, is whether or not it is our natural tendency to foster positive and supportive environments and whether or not monogamy offers better tools to achieve that environment than polygamous relationships.

Is it in our nature to seek or create positive environments?

Does a monogamous relationship lend itself to that goal?

Does a polygamous relationship lend itself to that goal?

 

[bomba923]

Hmm...couldn't monogamy simply be considered as a naturally selected device for population control?

Early on, I'd imagine primitive human societies might have found it easier to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number (of humans)" if that "number" (of humans) was kept below excessive levels (i.e., if they otherwise practiced sex anywhere/anytime...leading to many births...leading to resources problems...and other issues...)

So "early on", primitive societies/cultures who encouraged monogamy "succeeded" over societies/cultures that did not.

Perhaps?

 

[nannoh]

Hmm...couldn't monogamy simply be considered as a naturally selected device for population control?

Early on, I'd imagine primitive human societies might have found it easier to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number (of humans)" if that "number" (of humans) was kept below excessive levels (i.e., if they otherwise practiced sex anywhere/anytime...leading to many births...leading to resources problems...and other issues...)

So "early on", primitive societies/cultures who encouraged monogamy "succeeded" over societies/cultures that did not.

Perhaps?

Tell that to Nana and Gigi Malkovitsch who had 13 children to keep the homestead going. I don't know if they had a culture other than the monthly get together they herded their children to across 27 miles of snow. Other than that it was survival by numbers and a good 20 percent of the family was sure to die over any given 5 years.

But, I think you have a point. It was probably a "survival of the fittest" social system in this case. And as we know, one system will work during a certain condition where the same system won't in another condition or environment.

Today, with a progressive amount of ethnic and technological diversity beginning to accumulate on every continent what is the best marrage model for surviving as a family? Or will the "family" unit go "Global" the way the "Global Corporations" would like to see happen?

Without a focus or ankor of a family its much easier to feed mis-information to inexperienced workers who will work for slave wages because they have no idea that there was/is/could be an alternative - such as in the "good old days" their parents may or may not have told them about.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Geez, I gave a bunch of examples at the start of this thread to show that lots of humans have organized themselve in ways that contradict any supposed inborn monogametic impukse, and here people are speculating about it being an evolutionary adaptation. Yesh, sure, just like the green hair and wings we all have!

 

[verty]

However, some people enter into marriage or make promises with good intent, but perhaps without thinking thoroughly regarding the promise, or perhaps without full internal commitment, hence the marriage fails and the promise is broken.

But society frowns on people who have children outside of wedlock. Therefore, people are likely to marry before or shortly after having children whether or not they have thought it through or whatever. They'll do it because supposedly it's 'the right thing to do'.

So they follow the tradition because it is traditional. Traditions have that effect, so saying that traditions can be meaningful seems to miss the point that traditions have 'social merit' pretty much regardless of what they mean. Any meaningfulness is largely irrelevant.

It's like when I read books on etiquette, perhaps by Dale Carnegie or Peter Post, and I read that one should "be genuinely interested in listening to people" or "show people that you are genuinely interested". They typically follow it up with something like "I don't mean that you should lie, I mean that you should be genuinely interested". This seems very similar to "you should marry if you have children and you should mean it". It all seems rather disingenous to me.

If you want to keep the meaningfulness of marriage, then divorce it from the matter of having children and from the matter of it being the right thing to do. If you want to keep the children-connection, forget about the eternal commitment. I don't see that one can keep both.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

no problem son, its not offensive to me.
I showed that they make not valid point, and nobody has refuted it yet.

because it was a jest, and I have refuted it.

? no point taken?

ditto

With utmost absolutness not. We should not do whatever we want. Its very big blunder think everything is relative. It is not. Just because in afganistan women are treated the way they are treated we cannot say 'oh, its just the way they do things'. We are to change their setup! by reasonable means!

What I mean, is we should do what we want as long as it brings no harm. I don't see how homosexuality does harm. Plus, I think some of us have acknowledged that people don't choose to be homosexual, but are born that way. I don't think it'll bring down civilization.

Ok, imagine entire population homosexuals. Then imagine entire population according to nature, ie opposite sex partners.

Homosexuality does seem to be naturally designed, not learned or chosen.

If you do not see a difference on the impace on society, we cannot have discussion on this.

Who said all the population had to have one type of sexuality? Hello, we are related to the bisexual bonobos...

I am not against homosexuals, i just hold opinion its not 'natural setup'.

There is evidence to the contrary.

There is more to it. Pheromones, VNO, brain, etc. But trust me, I am not uneducated on this.

Seems you have selective knowledge.

Its reasonable to all ppl who think. I dare you to explain to me in what points its unreasonalbe.

Because it is ignorant and completely ethnocentric assume that the way things are in your culture are the reasonable normal way. Hello, did you miss the chapter on colonialism?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Geez, I gave a bunch of examples at the start of this thread to show that lots of humans have organized themselve in ways that contradict any supposed inborn monogametic impukse, and here people are speculating about it being an evolutionary adaptation. Yesh, sure, just like the green hair and wings we all have!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

But society frowns on people who have children outside of wedlock. Therefore, people are likely to marry before or shortly after having children whether or not they have thought it through or whatever. They'll do it because supposedly it's 'the right thing to do'.

Are they? Are you familiar with the term "my baby's daddy"

So they follow the tradition because it is traditional. Traditions have that effect, so saying that traditions can be meaningful seems to miss the point that traditions have 'social merit' pretty much regardless of what they mean. Any meaningfulness is largely irrelevant.

And how did they become traditions? Traditions do have merit, and they change rapidly when environments change. Case in point - change in Kwakuitl potlatching and social hierarchy when they came into contact with European fur traders.

It's like when I read books on etiquette, perhaps by Dale Carnegie or Peter Post, and I read that one should "be genuinely interested in listening to people" or "show people that you are genuinely interested". They typically follow it up with something like "I don't mean that you should lie, I mean that you should be genuinely interested". This seems very similar to "you should marry if you have children and you should mean it". It all seems rather disingenous to me.

I think this is speaking to the Asperger's syndrome exhibited by our cultural practices at times.

If you want to keep the meaningfulness of marriage, then divorce it from the matter of having children and from the matter of it being the right thing to do.

Social practices usually become social practices because they're useful, though sometimes not for the individual. Meanings are attached to keep those practices in place. I think you're right about divorcing marriage from children - marriage is really useful as a social alliance and subsistence practices.

 

[verty]

And how did they become traditions? Traditions do have merit, and they change rapidly when environments change.

Traditions did have merit and traditions may have merit, but to say that traditions do have merit is, I think, false. Traditions may contingently have merit, but not necessarily.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe traditions evolve because they provide some 'stability' or 'assurance' in society, and societies usually prefer stability/predictability. However, there are exceptions to the rules, and therein lies the uncertainty. Too much uncertainty can lead to anxiety and worry, which can lead to negative/detrimental behavior.

Then there is the matter that traditions became arbitrary or dogmatic or automatic, in which case the original meaning seems lost.

How does one find the right mate/partner? Many or most people get married with the expectation of having children. The marriage is supposed to form a stable relationship in which the couple agrees to establish and provide 'mutual support'. However, in practicality, we observe that more than 50% of marriages end with divorce, and in some fraction one or both spouses engage in extramarrital relationships.

Society frowns on children out of wedlock, because society often bears the burden for the care of the children. Certainly there are those who are more concerned about the moral aspects and there are those who are more concerned about the economic aspects.

As for monogamy, it works for me. I prefer to fall asleep beside the same woman every night (when I'm not traveling). When I'm away from home, I miss my wife and kids, and I look forward to being home.

It just wouldn't work for me to fall asleep with a different spouse each night, nor would it work for me with conjugal visits with other women. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

 

[sneez]

Plus, I think some of us have acknowledged that people don't choose to be homosexual, but are born that way. I don't think it'll bring down civilization.

No body said it will bring down civilization??

I don't know why you provide me with evidence of you uncaring and selective reading of posts, just trying to make your view the correct one.

I never said homosexuals are not born. On the contrary my post about pheromones proves that they are born with this misfunction of this apparatus of sexual attraction.

On the same time, there are gays who chose to be, due to various psychological reasons. (and i made an interview couple yrs back with one such a guy.)

And that's not even the issue. And please, if you have nothing to say, its better to say nothing, than your one-sentence-directed-'smart' remarks which make no point but one, which is not appropriate for educated discussion.

 

[JasonRox]

I think monogamy was a good direction for us. It seems like it was an evolution of our social order, but then again, it has it's faults.

I don't believe in "pure" monogamy. I think that's just absurd and leads to many insecurities. What I mean by "pure" is that once you are with someone, you don't even check out the opposite sex because it betrays the relationship or something. Or when your partners asks if you think so and so is attractive, you're expected to say that your partner is more attractive than so and so. This is just freaking ridiculous. Or you can't have friendly fun conversations with the opposite sex because you might end up falling for that person, but what if you do? Then you believe their exists a better partner, so tough luck to your other partner. Exploring the world is how you will find the best partner, and being the best partner you can be is how you avoid your own partner from finding better ones. For example, lots of guys act like freaking idiots in relationships, then they complain that their girl fall for another guy. Well, if you act like an idiot, it won't take very long to find a better guy. Similarly, for girls.

On the other hand, if you choose to get married, then you technically think there is no one better, so there is no worries in friendly conversations with the opposite sex. That is true marriage! Marriage, I think, is not just loving each other, but simply that this is the most love you'll get from anyone! So, don't go and marry someone just because you fell in love with them (like 90% of people out there).

Of course, I also think as a married man, you can still check out other girls, but not to an excess or in your wife's presence. Of course, let your wife know your philosophy of marriage, because then she might not even want to marry you. Who knows.

Anyways, "pure" monogamy is just crazy. Yes, I've had my girlfriend ask me if I thought a girl was attractive, and I said yes. I didn't lie. She got a little upset, but I simply responded with the idea that I'm not going to give false security by telling you I think no other girl is attractive. I think bigger problems come from false security because then she thinks she's number one and does not have to do anything to stay there. But like I said, you always have to be the best partner. She knows I think she's attractive, so I don't see why she wants me to lie and say "Nope, she's not that attractive."

To not check out girls would be like impossible! And to even deny their attractiveness seems absurd. Sure, she can feel like I might cheat on her or something, but that's a result of lack of trust in me. I can cover up that trust problem by hiding everything, but then that's "fake" trust. Attractive girls will always exist, so you just have to trust your man around them. Of course, a lot of that trust was lost because 90% of males can't control themselves, but don't put that out on me. I'm better than that, and I expect better myself.

Anyways, carry on.

 

[nannoh]

Geez, I gave a bunch of examples at the start of this thread to show that lots of humans have organized themselve in ways that contradict any supposed inborn monogametic impukse, and here people are speculating about it being an evolutionary adaptation. Yesh, sure, just like the green hair and wings we all have!

selfAdjoint. I missed your contributions at the beginning of this thread and of course I suffered for that!

The many examples you gave of various cultural relationship models are enlightening. There really is no way to say that a partcular tradition will survive longer or predominantly because of its efficiency in a society. Its more a case of whether or not the society has bigger guns or more people or more resources that will most likely determine if it survives.

The surviving and conquering society will then be able to impose its ideas about marrage and other traditions on the conquered populice. Take the Spanish invasion of South and Central America for example. I'm always amazed that in a few short centuries the whole Aztec and related cultures (which had lasted thousands of years) lost their traditions and willing accepted the traditions and religion of the Spanish.

Its hard to say if the survivablity of a tradition is tested by time or by the evolutionary survivability of its practitioners. Most likely it is the latter.

 

[arildno]

It is not that surprising that the Spaniards managed to topple the Aztecs and Incas. These were EXTREMELY repressive regimes, and the Spaniards cleverly fomented already existing unrest to dismantle them.

 

[sneez]

The concept of romatic love at least operates on monogamy. It was introduced into Europe via the troubadours, influenced by Persian tradition

For those interested on view on romantic love from Jungian point of view, an interesting read.

An elegantly constructed, superior inquiry into the psychology of love."

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062504363/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[nannoh]

It is not that surprising that the Spaniards managed to topple the Aztecs and Incas. These were EXTREMELY repressive regimes, and the Spaniards cleverly fomented already existing unrest to dismantle them.

The records describing the Aztecs and Incas were written by extremely repressive regimes. How can we be certain about their unbiased view of these cultures?

 

[sneez]

But entering into marriage, means the fulfilling of certain duties and obligations, one of which is loyalty to the spouse. Otherwise, why get married?

It seems polygamy is viewed as something 'dirty'. Where loyalty and fullfiling of duties go aside. Monogamous relationship can turn into seeking other partners. There is horendous statistics on cheating in US, children out of wedlock, etc. Even married couples go into 'swinger' relationships. I don't see why polygamy is automatically viewed like this, there is no justification that such 'higher values' of monogamy not present in polygamy.

Anyway, it seems that argument against polygamy only ideological in nature. I asked at the beginning why would we need a law that explicitly prohibits it. So to ask other way around, if there was non-religious state, would it be rational to prohibit such a marriage?

Sneez you quoted me just as I was rewriting my message!

Quoted you to introduce further reading on the point you made, for those interested.

 

[nannoh]

Anyway, it seems that argument against polygamy only ideological in nature. I asked at the beginning why would we need a law that explicitly prohibits it. So to ask other way around, if there was non-religious state, would it be rational to prohibit such a marriage?

In recent years the Americian News Industry has dwelt only upon the polygamy perceived in the polygamous practicing religions of the mid west. What we're told about these sects is that polygamy leads to child abduction, run aways, child molestation, incest and abuse of spouses and syblings. The reporting may be bias or a misrepresentation of the situation but several independent reports have confirmed the earlier ones.

I'm sure there are nice people who are able to maintain a multi-person-relationship ie: polygamous marrage. But, when it is allowed in the case of child predators, psychos or whatevers the ensuing problems seem to magnify when compared to a monogamous marrage. This is obviously because there are more people in the marrage to keep secrets or be kept in the dark about what is actually taking place. Perhaps two heads are better than 5 when it comes to staying on top of the actions of the "alpha male" or female.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

No body said it will bring down civilization??

This is what I'm referring to -

With utmost absolutness not. We should not do whatever we want. Its very big blunder think everything is relative. It is not. Just because in afganistan women are treated the way they are treated we cannot say 'oh, its just the way they do things'. We are to change their setup! by reasonable means!

You compared homosexuality to the way women are treated in Afghanistan. The slew of exclamation points and the mention that doing whatever we want (including homosexuality) was unreasonable communicated a feeling of imminent disaster.

I don't know why you provide me with evidence of you uncaring and selective reading of posts, just trying to make your view the correct one.

Alrighty then.

I never said homosexuals are not born. On the contrary my post about pheromones proves that they are born with this misfunction of this apparatus of sexual attraction.

Ah, I see that now. You're posts were a "bit" unclear.

And that's not even the issue. And please, if you have nothing to say, its better to say nothing, than your one-sentence-directed-'smart' remarks which make no point but one, which is not appropriate for educated discussion.

I'm evaluating your assertionsn and evidence. Feel free to report my posts if you find they are inappropriate.