Poll: Your stance on monogamy?
- Thread starter THEMILKMAN
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well I have a few stand points on this and they are thus:
I think (may be wrong) that there are more women than men so if every one paired up then there would be some people who would have to be alone (I know I am leaving out GLBT at the moment but stick with me k?)
Plus what if conjoined twins loved the same person is that ok?
also what if two people are in love but feel they have more love to give, why not get more people involved.
but seeing as I am alone my current position is that if people group up then less chance for me so boooo polygamy.
I think (may be wrong) that there are more women than men so if every one paired up then there would be some people who would have to be alone (I know I am leaving out GLBT at the moment but stick with me k?)
Plus what if conjoined twins loved the same person is that ok?
also what if two people are in love but feel they have more love to give, why not get more people involved.
but seeing as I am alone my current position is that if people group up then less chance for me so boooo polygamy.
If monogamy isn't someone else's bag then that's fine with me. If I'm perfectly honest, I just don't like the idea of someone else nailing my girlfriend/wife and I'd find it weird if I had more than one girlfriend/wife. I think I'd end up putting myself in the horrible situation of 'which one do I like best' or 'I wonder which one of them likes me the most' or some other insane question which people ask themselves when they're in love.
Plus, if I was to look at it from a 'Oh dear god, my poor, poor wallet' perspective then I've got twice the amount of birthday, christmas and valentines day presents to get and twice the amount of severe ear rape when I forget birth dates and anniversaries. Let's not forget too that I'd need to buy a substantially bigger bed for us all to sleep in and it just gets a bit mad.
If I was crazy-rich and felt that I needed a lot more lovin'/had a lot more lovin' to give then if could be a possibility but otherwise, it just isn't for me.
Plus, if I was to look at it from a 'Oh dear god, my poor, poor wallet' perspective then I've got twice the amount of birthday, christmas and valentines day presents to get and twice the amount of severe ear rape when I forget birth dates and anniversaries. Let's not forget too that I'd need to buy a substantially bigger bed for us all to sleep in and it just gets a bit mad.
If I was crazy-rich and felt that I needed a lot more lovin'/had a lot more lovin' to give then if could be a possibility but otherwise, it just isn't for me.
You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions." It is your definition of healthy and all such words: capable, mature, reasonable, these are all perceptions. Perceptions which have and will continue to vary across an infinite spectrum of human thought; every age, place, culture, and person varies these invariably. Don't give me that BS.dathwampeer said:
You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."
This is one of those relative value judgment things that everybody has to find their own peace with.
Monogamy is ingrained into the human mind; it's instinctive to want to seek out a single mate and stay with them. Then again, so is cheating; it's instinctive to want to sample a number of possible mates to be able to get the best genes to pass along to your offspring (particularly if your long-term partner is not as desirable as some of the other potential mates you have access to).
Polygamy seeks to resolve this issue by allowing one man to be long-term partners with several women.
That raises another interesting point: you never hear anybody lobbying for polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) in western culture (probably because of sexism, but who really knows?). Polygamy, strictly speaking, allows for both polygyny (man with multiple wives) and polyandry, but you never hear anyone talking about polyandry.
Whatever. The point is polygamy doesn't always work, probably because it's hard enough to keep one person satisfied in a marital relationship, let alone several. You also need commitment not only between the husband/wife and their spouses, but between the spouses themselves, and that's both hard to get and hard to maintain.
Homosexual relationships within the polygamist group would probably make things easier; not as hard to be committed to someone you like having sex with. Or maybe that would just open a whole different can of worms. Whatever, I digress.
The bottom line is that human beings will always have a love/hate relationship with monogamy. The general individualism of western culture (individual families tend to live separately instead of communally or as clans/tribes/etc.) makes it so that it's a lot harder to raise children outside of a stable, monogamous relationship. The fact that monogamy is hard (for some people) to do, and that the divorce rate (in America) is about 50%, doesn't mean that monogamy is bad.
Overall, I think most of the marital problems people have are because people don't take marriage seriously enough (it's a really big commitment) and because we underestimate the power of sex. I blame Christianity for the latter; people tend to downplay the importance of finding a mate who's sexually compatible with you (i.e., someone you might actually want to have sex with for as long as you want to have sex) and of being sexually aware themselves because sex is widely believed to be inherently sinful and you really shouldn't be doing it anyway other than to have children.
Biologically speaking, sex plays an important role in bonding and maintaining an emotional connection between adults, and if that aspect of the relationship isn't good for one of the involved parties, it's going to create problems elsewhere in the relationship, and will probably lead to cheating as well.
In summary: Monogamy is not the problem. People not understanding how to be successful mates, how to find quality mates, and how human mating works in general, is the problem.
Monogamy is ingrained into the human mind; it's instinctive to want to seek out a single mate and stay with them. Then again, so is cheating; it's instinctive to want to sample a number of possible mates to be able to get the best genes to pass along to your offspring (particularly if your long-term partner is not as desirable as some of the other potential mates you have access to).
Polygamy seeks to resolve this issue by allowing one man to be long-term partners with several women.
That raises another interesting point: you never hear anybody lobbying for polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) in western culture (probably because of sexism, but who really knows?). Polygamy, strictly speaking, allows for both polygyny (man with multiple wives) and polyandry, but you never hear anyone talking about polyandry.
Whatever. The point is polygamy doesn't always work, probably because it's hard enough to keep one person satisfied in a marital relationship, let alone several. You also need commitment not only between the husband/wife and their spouses, but between the spouses themselves, and that's both hard to get and hard to maintain.
Homosexual relationships within the polygamist group would probably make things easier; not as hard to be committed to someone you like having sex with. Or maybe that would just open a whole different can of worms. Whatever, I digress.
The bottom line is that human beings will always have a love/hate relationship with monogamy. The general individualism of western culture (individual families tend to live separately instead of communally or as clans/tribes/etc.) makes it so that it's a lot harder to raise children outside of a stable, monogamous relationship. The fact that monogamy is hard (for some people) to do, and that the divorce rate (in America) is about 50%, doesn't mean that monogamy is bad.
Overall, I think most of the marital problems people have are because people don't take marriage seriously enough (it's a really big commitment) and because we underestimate the power of sex. I blame Christianity for the latter; people tend to downplay the importance of finding a mate who's sexually compatible with you (i.e., someone you might actually want to have sex with for as long as you want to have sex) and of being sexually aware themselves because sex is widely believed to be inherently sinful and you really shouldn't be doing it anyway other than to have children.
Biologically speaking, sex plays an important role in bonding and maintaining an emotional connection between adults, and if that aspect of the relationship isn't good for one of the involved parties, it's going to create problems elsewhere in the relationship, and will probably lead to cheating as well.
In summary: Monogamy is not the problem. People not understanding how to be successful mates, how to find quality mates, and how human mating works in general, is the problem.
I prefer monogamy. I like the security and bond me and my wife have. Like any human (male or female) i am still attracted to other potentials, i just don't give a shit to pursue them.
Now, if by polygamy you mean marrying many other women(or men) then i would have to disagree. Those relationships, even if all agree before hand, tend to end with abuse both mentally and physically. Not always how you think. Please note i am talking about people entering serious relationships with multiple partners at once, not one person cheating on multiple partners behind there backs, not one person going through flings, I am not talking about old fashioned courting of multiple women(archie style). I am talking about straight up serious long term relationships with a group of people.
If one man has three wive or one woman has three husbands the odds of emotional or physical abuse rise amongst the three perpetuated by each other, and not the one.
This is because of jealousy, and if you think it's something created by religion i would like to direct you to the animal kingdom. Where males or females(depending on the group dynamic) beat the hell, or kill, one another for the mate. It is a similar situation with long term polygamy. The three try to get the most attention, the one only has so much time, the one that gets the least will become emotional hurt and may begin to sabotage or hurt the other two to get more attention. The more mates in the pot the more emotional, and possible physical, abuse could be perpetuated against the other members of the relationship.
The reason why we don't see this in swingers, in fact we might see the opposite with the two becoming more emotionally attached, is because in those cases the swing partners are not becoming emotionally attached. Its sex and all participants are aware of it.
That is not to say swinging is the fix all to a troubled marriage, as people vary and it could destroy said marriage if there isn't a strong emotional foundation.
Ultimately what one person chooses is up to them, and i don't really have a right to tell anyone if they are wrong or right. I have my preference, you have yours.
However from what i have learned, mostly about human psychological behavior, polygamous relationships don;t seem to have a strong emotional dynamic. If you, or someone else, is in one that works and everyone is happy by god power to you.
To me though it is just not worth it.
Edit:
If the word marriage offends you in anyway please feel free to interchange it with Union, Long term relationships or any other fancy word you'd like to use to label "People promising loyalty for long periods of time".
Now, if by polygamy you mean marrying many other women(or men) then i would have to disagree. Those relationships, even if all agree before hand, tend to end with abuse both mentally and physically. Not always how you think. Please note i am talking about people entering serious relationships with multiple partners at once, not one person cheating on multiple partners behind there backs, not one person going through flings, I am not talking about old fashioned courting of multiple women(archie style). I am talking about straight up serious long term relationships with a group of people.
If one man has three wive or one woman has three husbands the odds of emotional or physical abuse rise amongst the three perpetuated by each other, and not the one.
This is because of jealousy, and if you think it's something created by religion i would like to direct you to the animal kingdom. Where males or females(depending on the group dynamic) beat the hell, or kill, one another for the mate. It is a similar situation with long term polygamy. The three try to get the most attention, the one only has so much time, the one that gets the least will become emotional hurt and may begin to sabotage or hurt the other two to get more attention. The more mates in the pot the more emotional, and possible physical, abuse could be perpetuated against the other members of the relationship.
The reason why we don't see this in swingers, in fact we might see the opposite with the two becoming more emotionally attached, is because in those cases the swing partners are not becoming emotionally attached. Its sex and all participants are aware of it.
That is not to say swinging is the fix all to a troubled marriage, as people vary and it could destroy said marriage if there isn't a strong emotional foundation.
Ultimately what one person chooses is up to them, and i don't really have a right to tell anyone if they are wrong or right. I have my preference, you have yours.
However from what i have learned, mostly about human psychological behavior, polygamous relationships don;t seem to have a strong emotional dynamic. If you, or someone else, is in one that works and everyone is happy by god power to you.
To me though it is just not worth it.
Edit:
If the word marriage offends you in anyway please feel free to interchange it with Union, Long term relationships or any other fancy word you'd like to use to label "People promising loyalty for long periods of time".
Something like 50% of marraiges end in Divorce (In the USA), or at least, that is the factoid I have heard often. Is it Monogamy if you get a divorce first? Technically, no.THEMILKMAN said:
The actual way that it looks like humans are wired, is to want 'short' but exclusive relationships. Where 'short' means something like 6 months to 10 years. The problem is that while that works 'ok' for many people in the high end of that range, it doesn't work so well on the low end.
That is, getting a divorce after a 10 year monogamous marraige is common enough, and is the least of expectations. But if your partner is expecting that (instinctually) but you apparently are more of a 6 month kind of person... well, it doesn't work out so great.
First of all, your poll needs to list some rational reasons to be for/against polygamy. Although I suppose eight slots is limiting so perhaps it is understandable.
It would only make you feel dirty because society has conditioned you that way. Once you realize that on an emotional level I bet the thought will no longer have that effect. Also, I hope what you mean to say is not that other people shouldn't be allowed to be in polygamous relationships just because of how they make you feel.THEMILKMAN said:
Note that polygamy is having multiple spouses meaning one women having multiple husbands is a polygamous relationship. In light of the fact that both genders have the freedom to marry multiple partners I take no issue with it. Would I enter into such a relationship myself? I would if I saw that the practical benefits as far as raising children goes outweigh the negatives (which they very well may). Still, right now I'm not too keen on entering any relationship.THEMILKMAN said:
I have one problem with what you are saying.Giest4life said:
If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?
If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.
Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?
What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.
In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.
Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?
Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).
As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.
As long as I am not in a relationship, noone has the right to tell me how many "partners" I can have.
However, if I were to marry, I would concentrate on only one - because of love and respect.
However, if I were to marry, I would concentrate on only one - because of love and respect.
Animals that are very smart, and have complex social behaviors tend to be monogamous. For example: Cranes, wolves
I think that a human relationship is complex enough that it really demands ones full attention to one person to satisfy both people's needs.
I think that a human relationship is complex enough that it really demands ones full attention to one person to satisfy both people's needs.
Other:
People should be able to be with as few or as many people as they want and I have no issue with that. There are a lot of bi-sexuals out there who may love someone but want something from the other sex so they have multiple partners. Some people may just love two people at the same time, or want the option to be sexually free. It doesn't make them bad people it just means they want something different than what society wants for them.
I don't see any harm in it as long as everyone in the relationship is aware and happy with it.
If it were me, no at this point in time but I don't think you should close yourself off to new experiences before you try them.
People should be able to be with as few or as many people as they want and I have no issue with that. There are a lot of bi-sexuals out there who may love someone but want something from the other sex so they have multiple partners. Some people may just love two people at the same time, or want the option to be sexually free. It doesn't make them bad people it just means they want something different than what society wants for them.
I don't see any harm in it as long as everyone in the relationship is aware and happy with it.
If it were me, no at this point in time but I don't think you should close yourself off to new experiences before you try them.
I tend to feel that polygamy often leads to unhappy people. That we _can_ satisfy multiple people sexually is not to say that we should, nor that our ability to do so is indicative of an ability to support those other people emotionally or, in some cases, financially. It complicates the web of human relationships terribly, even before the issue of offspring comes into the picture.
There are rare- in my experience, very rare- people who can pull off polyamorous relationships in which everyone genuinely feels they're getting everything they need from each other. There are also a lot of people who try, sometimes on the basis of some ill-considered and often self-centered philosophy, and end up leaving a lot of hurt feelings (at best) behind them. In many situations, one has to ask: exactly what makes you so @#$%ing special that your awesomeness must be spread around and can't possibly be contained by one person?
Jealousy is also a base animal instinct. And we didn't get to be car-driving city dwellers with mass agriculture on the basis of "base animal instincts"; get over it!
There are rare- in my experience, very rare- people who can pull off polyamorous relationships in which everyone genuinely feels they're getting everything they need from each other. There are also a lot of people who try, sometimes on the basis of some ill-considered and often self-centered philosophy, and end up leaving a lot of hurt feelings (at best) behind them. In many situations, one has to ask: exactly what makes you so @#$%ing special that your awesomeness must be spread around and can't possibly be contained by one person?
Jealousy is also a base animal instinct. And we didn't get to be car-driving city dwellers with mass agriculture on the basis of "base animal instincts"; get over it!