Monogamy

[svenisgod]

On Monogamy

I saw a post on my facebook feed the other day. Some woman said we have r13 r 16 r18 for movies because the themes those movies held shouldnt be shown to people of those ages. She said that alternative sex practices (homosexuality) dont seem to have a R-anything and teaching her kids alternative sex practice just isn't appropriate.
Two can play at this game.
I don't think its appropriate to teach kids that monogamy is a normal or preferable way of living life. Monogamy is when people stay in a relationship with one person and don't have sex outside of that relationship.
Its my opinion that this form of relationship, among other things, degrades romance, causes trust problems and nurtures an environment where negative emotions can thrive.
So get on with it will ya?

Monogamy causes trust problems.
I've seen it happen all the time. Lets start a scenario. Dani (or danny) in a fit of lust, maybe at a party, maybe elsewhere, has gone and had sex with someone that isnt their partner. The partner in a fit of jealousy breaks off the relationship and causes a rift between the two and their respective friend groups.
Now. In most circumstances when the Dani has cheated that sex meant nothing to them apart from the hugely pleasurable act of acting on their lust. Dani isn't planning to elope. They aren't planning on running off with them person and starting a new life having cut the previous relationship out in its entireity. Generally they have just got really horny over a particular person and their lust had become too much. They just wanted mindless sex.
But Dannies previous partner feels hard done by. Why exactly?
The relationship hasn't changed. Her DNA hasn't been sullied by this act. Her is still the same person behind it all.
Sex with her hasn't been sullied. This isn't the middle ages. No one is virginal till they meet you. If that were the case then you wouldn't want to have sex with her because of her past partners.

Monogamy creates a situation in which you have to worry about whether the other half of your relationship is out having initimate times with someone who isn't you. It makes you constantly wary of what your other half is doing.
This often breaks friendships. Lizzie might be spending a bit of time with Rob maybe they have been spending a little too much time in the eyes of Bill, Lizzies boyfriend. Bill tells Lizzie that she has to spend less time with Rob or stop seeing him all together or even at the smallest level Bill might tell Lizzie it concerns him how much time she is spending with him.
This then means these things to me:
Bill doesn't trust that lizzie loves him enough to stay emotionally attached to him.
Lizzie now feels bill doesn't trust her to not go and fuck any person that comes along.
Rob now feels awkward (if he knows about it) and will probably distance himself from the friendship.
If you truly love a person and you trust them you can trust them to see whoever they feel and at anytime they want with as much frequency as they want. A relationship means trusting in your mutual love for eachother if you cannot trust your partner that they will come back to you at the end of the day because they love who you are then I question why you are in that relationship in the first place.

So now we return to Dani who has cheated on her boyfriend. The most obvious argument that I'm sure you are wondering why I didn't address I will now address.
Dani broke her partners trust didn't she? It was a unspoken arrangement that you wouldn't have sex outside of the relationship. Dani is still at fault because that was the arrangement she agreed on right?

Monogamy degrades romance
Now it seems that its not your trust he has broken but your pride. That woman was yours and no one else should be having sex with her.
That woman was yours (I understand this is a strawman but people say this all the time and I still think its a valid point)
That woman was yours....
In what way was she yours? This sounds to be like she is your property. That she isn't a person you love but a commodity that you can hoard away for your personal benefit.
Monogamy says that you have the right to tell your partner what she or he can do with her own body as if you have any right to another persons body.
How wholly unromantic.
I would never want to be in a relationship where my partner felt she had the right to tell me what I could eat or drink or who I could associate with
Why does it change with sex? We are all our own people. We are not our partners, we are individuals. We have total liberty over our bodies because anything less makes us slaves within our own skins!
How is this romance? How can any relationship where the other person can tell you what you are allowed to do and not allowed to do be considered loving, trusting or romantic?
We talk about loving a person as they are but we apparently draw that line just before the persons sexuality and sexual needs.

But perhaps it truly was your trust she broke. The agreement was no sex outside of our relationship, however unromantic or isn't doesn't make a difference. This was her agreement and she must stick to it.

Monogamy holds our emotions and youth to ransom
The predominant relationship model in our society is monogomous. If you want to be in a relationship chances are you are going to have to be monogomous regardless if you feel it is right or if you feel breaks the whole concept of love.
We may love a person hugely but have to succumb to monogamy because anything else isn't considered a relationship at all.
For those of my age we are in the age where we would like to have many sexual experiences and many meaningful emotional connections but monogamy holds us to ransom.
If you want to have a meaningful emotional connection with someone you will have to remain monogamous and there is also a chance that because of a ridiculous idea that has been perpetuated throughout the media, you cannot or should not remain friends with the partner afterwards.
If you want to have heaps of sexual experiences chances are you are going to have to trawl the clubs and bars. But if you like to know the person beforehand, perhaps you like to know that they are at all similar to you or they aren't stupid or they are a cool person well fuck you better get into a relationship with someone (no this isn't true of all sexual experiences. I know plenty of people who are intimate with a lot of interesting people)

The problem with Dani's situation is that yes she did go back on the relationship you agreed to but was she given a choice of relationships? Would you have thought of her as a whore if she wanted to act on her sexuality away from you?
If yes (or if you wouldnt call her a whore but something more PC) then is your relationship based on love or possession?
But in the end has her indisgression changed anything at all? Has it destroyed the relationship?
Only if you want it to.

[AxTekk]

Monogamy is an unnatural, un-Christian, modern idea that corrupts our youth into lives of sexual decadence and irresponsibility.

[supergandhi64]

i'm pretty sure it's adultery which causes trust issues in monogamous relationships . . . if there was no adultery there wouldn't be any mistrust between couples either. the opposite of what you said pretty much

--supergandhi64

[Spedmallet]

At 10/27/13 08:13 AM, AxTekk wrote: Monogamy is an unnatural, un-Christian, modern idea that corrupts our youth into lives of sexual decadence and irresponsibility.

I think u mean polygamy

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 08:20 AM, Spedmallet wrote:

At 10/27/13 08:13 AM, AxTekk wrote: Monogamy is an unnatural, un-Christian, modern idea that corrupts our youth into lives of sexual decadence and irresponsibility.

I think u mean polygamy

Actually, although monogamy is obviously more egalitarian and stable, polygeny is the most common reproductive strategy naturally found in humans. It is championed in the old testament, unrefuted in the new and *arguably* encourages the most sexual responsibility as not all men get to mate, and those who do most provide for multiple women (not to mention the near-selfless love and devotion required from women).

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 08:45 AM, AxTekk wrote: Actually, although monogamy is obviously more egalitarian and stable, polygeny is the most common reproductive strategy naturally found in humans. It is championed in the old testament, unrefuted in the new and *arguably* encourages the most sexual responsibility as not all men get to mate, and those who do most provide for multiple women (not to mention the near-selfless love and devotion required from women).

Most common strategy, because it's easier and less responsible... And for fuck's sake, do not tell me you are obligatory towards a bloody book!

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 08:59 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Most common strategy, because it's easier and less responsible.

If by "easier" you mean "more beneficial evolutionarily" then yes, but I'd argue that fits a lot of the definitions for "best strategy" as well. Sex psychology has a lot of theories, and as a field it grows daily but it's pretty much universally agreed that we are hardwired for polygeny although the mechanics of the polygenistic system are disputed.

One interesting idea is based on the fact that women tend to be more attracted to low testosterone males most of the month, but are more attracted to high testosterone males during oestrus, when they are most fertile. Here you have a natural basis for women forming stable relationships with beta males, going off to cheat with an alpha once every month when they are most likely to bear his child. Smart, because the betas will probably be the best at raising the child while the alphas will probably provide the child with the best immune system etc. from a genetic standpoint.

Monogamy is unnatural. Whether or not it's still the best system for a stable society is another matter, but it's definitely not the one our instincts are built for.

And for fuck's sake, do not tell me you are obligatory towards a bloody book!

Nah, I'm not Christian. That whole post was satirising the fundamentalist stance on homosexuality yo.

[supergandhi64]

At 10/27/13 08:45 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 10/27/13 08:20 AM, Spedmallet wrote:

At 10/27/13 08:13 AM, AxTekk wrote: Monogamy is an unnatural, un-Christian, modern idea that corrupts our youth into lives of sexual decadence and irresponsibility.

I think u mean polygamy

Actually, although monogamy is obviously more egalitarian and stable, polygeny is the most common reproductive strategy naturally found in humans. It is championed in the old testament, unrefuted in the new and *arguably* encourages the most sexual responsibility as not all men get to mate, and those who do most provide for multiple women (not to mention the near-selfless love and devotion required from women).

bull sh*t . . . 1 corinthians 7:2 "but because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife & each woman her own husband" is that your idea of "unrefuted"? maybe you figured you should make up a bunch of nonsense & then hoped you'd get away with it

--supergandhi64

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 09:10 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: bull sh*t . . . 1 corinthians 7:2 "but because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife & each woman her own husband" is that your idea of "unrefuted"? maybe you figured you should make up a bunch of nonsense & then hoped you'd get away with it

All that quote says is that men and women must have wives and husbands to keep sex within marriage. The quote doesn't specify whether or not a man may have multiple wives, which is the reason polygamy is still a debate in African churches.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 09:09 AM, AxTekk wrote: Smart, because the betas will probably be the best at raising the child while the alphas will probably provide the child with the best immune system etc. from a genetic standpoint.

This sounds interesting in theory, but it's crap in practice. It's 100% established that those actions women partake in are entirely psychical and avoidable with proper loyalty and respect for their current mates.

Nah, I'm not Christian. That whole post was satirising the fundamentalist stance on homosexuality yo.

God damn it. You were very convincing; I am extremely elated to see that you are not of any sort. I cannot stress how absurd it is to turn a reality into a dream, rather than turn a dream into a reality. It's just... The one thing that is beyond all greatest of minds, is stupidity.

[supergandhi64]

At 10/27/13 09:13 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 10/27/13 09:10 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: bull sh*t . . . 1 corinthians 7:2 "but because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife & each woman her own husband" is that your idea of "unrefuted"? maybe you figured you should make up a bunch of nonsense & then hoped you'd get away with it

All that quote says is that men and women must have wives and husbands to keep sex within marriage. The quote doesn't specify whether or not a man may have multiple wives, which is the reason polygamy is still a debate in African churches.

if you want to be pedantic about it i can recite some more verses & see how many you want to play word association with since it isn't like there's a lack of bible verses condemning polygamy . . . for instance deuteronomy 17:17 "he shall not acquire many wives for himself lest his heart turn away nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold"

--supergandhi64

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 09:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote: This sounds interesting in theory, but it's crap in practice. It's 100% established that those actions women partake in are entirely psychical and avoidable with proper loyalty and respect for their current mates.

Well, I'm hardly advocating it as some kind of sexual utopia. As well as many other downsides, you get high rates of infanticide as beta males kill their mate's illegitimate offspring when they suspect infidelity (you can partially thank polygeny for the grotesque levels of child abuse in humans, especially in cases of step parents). It's just worth bearing in mind that our instincts are built for such a system, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge those who act on human nature.

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 09:20 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: if you want to be pedantic about it i can recite some more verses & see how many you want to play word association with since it isn't like there's a lack of bible verses condemning polygamy . . . for instance deuteronomy 17:17 "he shall not acquire many wives for himself lest his heart turn away nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold"

--supergandhi64

You're taking that quote heavily out of context, the verse is not saying that men must be monogamous. What it is saying is that Kings (the quote is from a chunk giving advice to Biblical Kings) should not acquire many earthly possessions as it might distract them from their duties to the Lord.

So this quote in context is actually saying: "If you're going to be in charge of Israel, don't go marrying loads of women or hoarding jewels". Also note that it doesn't even specify that the King should only have one wife, just that he shouldn't have many.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 09:22 AM, AxTekk wrote: It's just worth bearing in mind that our instincts are built for such a system, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge those who act on human nature.

So is killing... I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand you are not realizing that killing is also in the same boat as the drive to procreate expansively.

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 09:35 AM, Insanctuary wrote: So is killing... I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand you are not realizing that killing is also in the same boat as the drive to procreate expansively.

As is the urge to create beautiful poetry and to think philosophically. All these things are natural human desires. In terms of human nature, there is no good and bad, only right and wrong.

[supergandhi64]

At 10/27/13 09:30 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 10/27/13 09:20 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: if you want to be pedantic about it i can recite some more verses & see how many you want to play word association with since it isn't like there's a lack of bible verses condemning polygamy . . . for instance deuteronomy 17:17 "he shall not acquire many wives for himself lest his heart turn away nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold"

--supergandhi64

You're taking that quote heavily out of context, the verse is not saying that men must be monogamous. What it is saying is that Kings (the quote is from a chunk giving advice to Biblical Kings) should not acquire many earthly possessions as it might distract them from their duties to the Lord.

So this quote in context is actually saying: "If you're going to be in charge of Israel, don't go marrying loads of women or hoarding jewels". Also note that it doesn't even specify that the King should only have one wife, just that he shouldn't have many.

i can accept that kings & ministers (1 timothy 3:12) might need stricter rules than ordinary people but god doesn't judge people on whether they're rich or poor. i won't accept any arguments about how specific the bible is since outside of the general rules in leviticus you won't have your laws spoonfed to you. you wouldn't second guess"thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill" because it doesn't specify in what way you shouldn't steal or kill. you'll have to come up with a better rationalization than that

i've got another citation for you but since you didn't really make a proper dispute for the last i don't expect you to be able to dissect this one any better which is understandable since the bible is pretty clear on the matter of polygamy. matthew 19:3-9 "he answered 'have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male & female & said therefore a man shall leave his father & his mother & hold fast to his wife & the two shall become one flesh? so they are no longer two but one flesh. what therefore god has joined together let not man separate' "

--supergandhi64

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 09:49 AM, AxTekk wrote: As is the urge to create beautiful poetry and to think philosophically. All these things are natural human desires. In terms of human nature, there is no good and bad, only right and wrong.

We can create morbid poetry, too. And what we think is "beautiful" is not only relative, but irrelevant to the physicality of the world. We cannot say something exists, when it cannot be tied to the world. Everything that exists can be explained and tied to the world. Why can't beauty? Oh, yes... That's because it's not existent.

Also, "beauty" is not an urge. What you are alluding to is "peace", and "comfort" or "sense". We are systematically programmed to do things as right as the universe, but have the conscious to do everything wrong at the same time. Wittgenstein also explains this in his Tractatus. Instead of a "moral" compass, we also have a "factual" compass, thus reason> thus philosophy > thus science

[Makakaov]

Let's excuse all people from every wrong doing becuase they acted under influence of emotions.

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 09:58 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: [...] you wouldn't second guess"thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill" because it doesn't specify in what way you shouldn't steal or kill. you'll have to come up with a better rationalization than that

[...] matthew 19:3-9 "he answered 'have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male & female & said therefore a man shall leave his father & his mother & hold fast to his wife & the two shall become one flesh? so they are no longer two but one flesh. what therefore god has joined together let not man separate' "

Okay, so first of all you want a clearer refutation of the Deuteronomy quote.

I guess the first thing I got reading your reply was that you missed the significance of the quote itself: It isn't an ideological law like the ten commandments where each act listed is a mortal sin, it's a pragmatic law that serves to help enforce an ideological law. The ideological law in question? Looking after Israel ("lest thou heart turn away"). This isn't me forcing an interpretation either, here is a quote from a mainstream, widely used theology website giving their historical interpretation of the quote: 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives" This refers to (1) lustful use of power or more probably (2) political and religious alliances. This was the ancient Near Eastern way to form "non-aggression" pacts.

So the first thing to say is that marrying ridiculous numbers of women isn't even deemed immoral in itself. It's just seen as politically unwise.

Second thing to say is that you make the hidden assumption that "thou shall not multiply wives" means simply "have one wife". The distinction between "shall not multiply" and "shall keep only one" has been recognised in every translation of the verse I can find: not a single bible quotes the verse as saying that it is wrong to have multiple wives. In fact, historically the verse was simply taken to mean that a King shouldn't keep more than EIGHTEEN wives.

So the second thing to say is that the quote doesn't even condemn polygamy, just excesses of polygamy.

The Matthew quote is more interesting, but it's still a million miles away from explicitly condemning polygamy. Anyone vaguely familiar with Matthew recognising it for what it is: a quote against divorce. The man and wife becoming one flesh has absolutely nothing to do with who a man can marry and has everything to do with him being required under Christian law to love and cherish whoever he marries.

Shortly put, the quote has nothing to do with polygamy. Don't you think it's telling that you're having to bring up anti-divorce quotes and pretend like they're anti-polygamy quotes?

At 10/27/13 10:00 AM, Insanctuary wrote: We can create morbid poetry, too. And what we think is "beautiful" is not only relative, but irrelevant to the physicality of the world.

Well, you get my point. The good and bad things we do all come from instinct, it shouldn't sully or glorify them.

Also, "beauty" is not an urge. What you are alluding to is "peace", and "comfort" or "sense". We are systematically programmed to do things as right as the universe, but have the conscious to do everything wrong at the same time. Wittgenstein also explains this in his Tractatus. Instead of a "moral" compass, we also have a "factual" compass, thus reason> thus philosophy > thus science

That's a very, erm, interesting reading of tractatus... I'm sorry, I think I missed the point you were making about monogamy here...

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 10:24 AM, AxTekk wrote: Well, you get my point. The good and bad things we do all come from instinct, it shouldn't sully or glorify them.

When you say instinct, we are referring to the positive, negative and neutral properties of the universe, yes?

That's a very, erm, interesting reading of tractatus... I'm sorry, I think I missed the point you were making about monogamy here...

You should read my reading of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Someone that has been doing philosophy for I think 20~40 years, said they never heard anything like my understanding of Plato's allegory. That being said, I am enjoying you ripping ghandi a new one. Your argumentative prowess is surely admirable, AxTekk.

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 10:33 AM, Insanctuary wrote: When you say instinct, we are referring to the positive, negative and neutral properties of the universe, yes?

Not reeeeally. I mean, your approach to this stuff seems analogous to the Hindu idea of gunas whereby all good, passionate and bad stems from the very fractal structure of the universe in which case both the instinctive and the rational would be the "positive, negative and neutral properties of the universe" as they are all equally bound to the same fractal pattern.

I just mean actions driven by our raw neurology and hormones. Human nature, I suppose.

That being said, I am enjoying you ripping ghandi a new one. Your argumentative prowess is surely admirable, AxTekk.

Oh Lord, no no no no no no no haha, I'm not trying to make anyone feel shitty or inferior or anything. In a lot of arguments I think Super Ghandi and me would agree, and if I've got the facts wrong and ghandi can show me that, what the hey, I've just learnt something, right? No, all I'm trying to do is say the facts how I see them in the clearest way possible.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 10:52 AM, AxTekk wrote: I just mean actions driven by our raw neurology and hormones. Human nature, I suppose.

If so, you will see that there's more to it, and as you go further in, it ultimately leads to the atomical faculties.

Oh Lord, no no no no no no no haha, I'm not trying to make anyone feel shitty or inferior or anything. In a lot of arguments I think Super Ghandi and me would agree, and if I've got the facts wrong and ghandi can show me that, what the hey, I've just learnt something, right? No, all I'm trying to do is say the facts how I see them in the clearest way possible.

I enjoy rough discussions, it gets me hot in my pants, hot in my head and hot in general. It's like I pull the sun closer with such burning passion! ;3

[FordV8]

You probably want to go chimps way where the alpha male in the group gets all the bitches and the betas stay virgin.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 11:02 AM, FordV8 wrote: You probably want to go chimps way where the alpha male in the group gets all the bitches and the betas stay virgin.

Here's a paradoxical question for you. Let's say a man is alpha, gets all the bitches, but ends up killing them. What does that make him? A Beta Alpha or a Mega Beta?

[JayTheWiz]

My question is why would you want multiple wives? One wife already grants you enough nagging to last a lifetime; Why would I want enough to last me 5? Then there is the question of why I would want to share my wife (since, to be fair, this has to go both ways) with that douchebag jock who stuffed me in lockers when I was in high school?

Monogamy and staying faithful really is the best choice; If you can't keep your promises (or atleast, the "I will still faithful" promise) then you probably shouldn't of got married to begin with.

[AxTekk]

At 10/27/13 11:11 AM, JayTheWiz wrote: My question is why would you want multiple wives? One wife already grants you enough nagging to last a lifetime; Why would I want enough to last me 5? Then there is the question of why I would want to share my wife (since, to be fair, this has to go both ways) with that douchebag jock who stuffed me in lockers when I was in high school?

This. This all the goddamn way. Everyone's life is sooooo much better if we all agree to play nice and be monogamous. I honestly don't think anyone would disagree.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 11:18 AM, AxTekk wrote: This. This all the goddamn way. Everyone's life is sooooo much better if we all agree to play nice and be monogamous. I honestly don't think anyone would disagree.

It's kind of hard to split a 10 second orgasm between 543975940375340 women.

[FordV8]

At 10/27/13 11:06 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/27/13 11:02 AM, FordV8 wrote: You probably want to go chimps way where the alpha male in the group gets all the bitches and the betas stay virgin.

Here's a paradoxical question for you. Let's say a man is alpha, gets all the bitches, but ends up killing them. What does that make him? A Beta Alpha or a Mega Beta?

mega alpha

[Insanctuary]

At 10/27/13 11:35 AM, FordV8 wrote: mega alpha

Let's say this was back when humanity was next to extinct?