Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Why are people monogamous?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Nick Thinker
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 126
Why are people monogamous?Page 6 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

I'm ready to be illuminated because, so far, I'm not convinced that a polyamorous relationship is right for me


Stay ready!


To educate all of us--because we're ignorant (and maybe we are)? It must be according to what you say next.


Nice try!
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 127
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:10:01 AM
I'm hesitant to dip my toe into this sea of recrimination, but am interested so......

I've seen lots of posts referring to animals who mate "for life"--and so it's natural--as as well as lots of posts referring to cultures in which polygamy is (or was) the norm--so not everyone is monogomous...so is it natural?

I totally agree with the argument against using the habits of selected species within the animal kingdom as a guide: humans have REASON, which mitigates against necessarily seeing animal behavior as a guide to what's "natural" to humans.

But as for the monogamy v. polygamy thing....

European civilization "developed" later than it did in West Asia and the Middle East. Polygamy became an established norm in nomadic cultures, including the Hebrews, way before the founding of Islam (a religion rising out of Judaism, as is Christianity). There are reasons why polygamy became a part of both Judaic and Islamic culture, or at least a reason why ideas about marriage are expressed so differently in those cultures--or their early manifestations--from what they are in the civilizations growing out of western Europe. Western Europe is and has historically been a civilization based on land ownership or land-tenantcy--and the inheritance of either land or rights to tenantcy--whereas nomadic cultures (the Hebrews, the Bedouin tribes of the Arab peninsula) did not have the concern of land inheritance informing the development of their marriage patterns. Land, and its importance to the status as well as the wealth of medieval Europeans, when Christian civilization was being developed, was central to the importance of monogamy, and the practice of primogeniture (the passing of wealth to the oldest legitimate son) both contributed to and reflected this. That's not to say that no men had mistresses in medieval "Christian" Europe, but concubinage tended to only be practiced OPENLY, throughout the history of post-Roman European civilization, by those who could AFFORD to offer support to the offspring of their extra-marital unions.

It's also interesting that Christian civilization is the only WIDESPREAD civilization that has embraced the idea of absolute celibacy as an ideal and real lifestyle choice--in Catholicism, the founding faith of post-Roman Western Europe. The entrenchment of the idea that sex itself is a sin surely contributed to the idea of marriage as a holy institution, its holiness providing the comfort that sex within it is allowable, if only (according to some Christian believers still) for the purpose of procreation. Even if you reject that idea, the fact that it is part of the cultural memory (and our cultural education) must contribute to the continuing romanticization of monogamy, something which I myself (despite my ambivalence ) both romanticize and embrace.
 howsitgoing?
Joined: 7/3/2006
Msg: 128
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:12:45 AM
Okay, we all have relationships of varying depths, from purely casual acquaintances to close personal friends who can count on us in a jam, to the complete commitment of being prepared to lay down your life to protect the other. Psycholgically, we can have countless acquaintances, fewer friends we will put ourselves out for - isn't it nice to know there is one person in the world for whom you put it all on the line, one person you believe would do the same for you? That is something that can't be spread thin. We're lucky to find just one such person in life. I hope to be incredibly lucky and one day find a second. Personally, I'm not looking for safety in numbers as a hedge against loneliness. I'd rather find total commitment with one person and take that plunge. In a perfect marriage, I believe that's why we stay monogamous. One person you will never doubt. In a cruel world in which you have to watch your back in all kinds of social settings, isn't it a nice concept that there is one person in the world you will never have to doubt? And don't you want to be that person for someone? That's what monogamy was always about for me, forget the sociology and all the rest of the psychobabble, one person to trust completely and absolutely.
 Nick Thinker
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 129
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:15:48 AM
"Personally, I'm not looking for safety in numbers as a hedge against loneliness."

That refers to friends, not lovers!

"I'd rather find total commitment with one person and take that plunge"

It is called putting all one's eggs into one basket!

"In a cruel world in which you have to watch your back in all kinds of social settings, isn't it a nice concept that there is one person in the world you will never have to doubt? And don't you want to be that person for someone? That's what monogamy was always about for me, forget the sociology and all the rest of the psychobabble, one person to trust completely and absolutely."

Makes sense, BUT: The answer to a "bowling alone" society like the US's, the remedy is to "bowl in couples"?

To sum it up:
(a) A sufficient number of REAL friends for life
(b) A small number of lovers

(a)+(b) is NOT polygamy or polyamory, rather it is a model for socialization (a) and sexualization (b) in the cruel world the poster eloquently refers to. Cheers!


Edit: msg 130: Yes, the point is: "(a)+(b) is NOT polygamy or polyamory, rather it is a model for socialization (a) and sexualization (b) in the cruel world the poster eloquently refers to".

 howsitgoing?
Joined: 7/3/2006
Msg: 130
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:19:31 AM
Okay Nick, was there a point to that?
 dawn1114
Joined: 2/27/2006
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:39:14 AM
I never thought of myself polyamorous. In fact, I never used to think about any of this stuff at all, because life just toddled along quite nicely. But I just did a quick definition hunt and it sounds quite fitting. The emphasis is my own.

"Sometimes described as consensual and/or responsible non-monogamy. POLYAMORY IS USUALLY TAKEN AS A DESCRIPTION OF A LIFESTYLE OR RELATIONAL CHOICE AND PHILOSOPHY, RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL'S ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP STATUS AT A GIVEN MOMENT. There is a certain fluidity in its definition, to accommodate the different shades of meaning which might be covered. Polyamorous relationships are themselves varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals concerned."

So it's not a matter of trying to convince or "convert" anybody. It would not be possible. It's obviously not for everyone.

I described myself in another thread as an "Accidental Monogomist," because those were basically my beliefs even during a happy, 25-year stretch of monogamy.

Now I'll alternate that with being a "Theoretical Polyamorist." Who's going to bed now with just a couple of cats to keep me warm. Oh, well. 'night all, and Happy Easter to the Christians. Peace.
 Summer Teeth
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 132
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:43:52 AM
I'd rather find total commitment with one person and take that plunge. In a perfect marriage, I believe that's why we stay monogamous. One person you will never doubt.


I didn't really want to get this personal with you, Nick--but the reason I thought you were supporting the argument for polyamorous relationships was because it's possible a woman really screwed you over, and you no longer wanted any woman to have power over you. And let's face it: when in love we have a lot of power over another person. That's what I was thinking when you were discussing "energy," because it sounded like you were describing a vampiric personality. And some people are kind of like emotional vampires. Once you've been with a person like that . . . Yeesh! It makes it difficult to trust someone and, as you said, not to doubt her.

Then again, I think your discussion of polyamorous relationships may have been a mental exercise for amusement, not some past history of your previous relationships. I really don't know, and it doesn't matter. Discussions like these are just plain fun, no matter what the motivation is. So thanks for keeping it going! The ideas about friends actually has merit. But I really was curious about its inner workings about energy. I'm kind of disappointed that you didn't talk about it. But maybe you will. And that'll be fun, too!

A bit nomdic, great post and a wonderful look at the historical, religious, and socio-economic reasons for monogamy and polygamy. When you mentioned that you still romantisized monogamy, I was reminded of a thought that I didn't voice about how women, although more independent than ever, still want monogamy.

It's possible that, as we grow busier and busier and have to work longer hours than ever before, that monogamy won't change. As we grow busier, do we really have the time for polyamorous relationships that feel significant and meaningful? Hell, it's getting difficult for monogamous relationships to feel fulfilling because of our need to rely on working long hours in order to make a living. So, in order to feel loved and in order to make a living, polyamorous relationships may not be practical just because of time restraints. There, however, will always be exceptions.

Anyway, despite my jabbering about your posts, Nick, I like your thoughts a lot--and I've read your other posts in other forums. I just wanted to let you know that.

I still want to hear about that energy question because I am genuinely curious, even though I sounded a bit sarcastic. And anything else you have to say on the subject will still be fun. I might give your statements some criticism, but it has nothing to do with you--nope, just the argument.

I just wanted to give some people some kudos to what's being voiced. So thanks!

Edit: Nick, even though you totally changed your post, I still stand by everything I said here. :) You're just too funny, man!
 argfin
Joined: 7/31/2006
Msg: 133
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 1:58:20 AM
1) It's better for society - costs and stability.
2) It's better for children - stability/role models.
3) When you marry you give the "gift" of monogamy - yes it's hard, but it wouldn't be worth giving if it was easy would it?
4) The clap, etc.
5) Emotional ties and love (for me at least). Empty sex is glorified w*nking.


Probably more...
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 134
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 2:35:49 AM
Before anyone flames me for my error (see my post above). Buddhist monks are also celibate--my apologies.....
 lookandlearn
Joined: 12/9/2006
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 4:31:59 AM
First off, summerteeth and Nick - awesome intelligent and thought provoking posts, I imagine the reason you haven't written in a couple of posts is that you've hit the no more than 2 in 10 posting rule! Haven't read such intelligence in answers for a while.

couple of other small points:
Dictionary definitions; - dictionaries and grammars come after the language, so pulling out the definitions when there may have been a shift in understanding that hasn't been caught up on by the latest publication, isn't always so useful.


<div class="quote"> 1) It's better for society - costs and stability.
2) It's better for children - stability/role models.
3) When you marry you give the "gift" of monogamy - yes it's hard, but it wouldn't be worth giving if it was easy would it?
4) The clap, etc.
5) Emotional ties and love (for me at least). Empty sex is glorified w*nking.

Sorry but to the children part, that doesn't really hold much water. I know many from polygamous families (in particular Muslims from the middle east and west africa) and on the whole they have as much stability, if not more than many from monogamous families. There are more children for a start, a couple of other mothers to call on and a big extended family as a support. Yes that is an idealised situation but then so is the whole Walton family concept of one mother and one father.

When you marry? - marry in the church's concept of marriage I presume you mean.

To Nick? I felt much like summerteeth seemed to that your reaction must have come from experience. As it doesn't actually have to much substance to say that having a SO implies you have no close friends outside the union. In my world, that certainly isn't true and I have 2 incredibly close friends that I would do just about anything for, and both are married - I know they feel the same about me.

Surely the crux of the whole thing is whether in ones selt there is a need to be particularly close to a person, as there are some bonds that you just can't get many times over. Yes it is easy to have friends and to screw them, but to have that particular lover who gives you so much extra in your life that you want to spend more of your time with? not so many of them come along. The type of union being spoken of is the one where secrets are shared and plans are made and one 'becomes one' with another. It follows that you can't really do that with two. Even in polygamous unions there is usually a favoured wife, who gets much more of the emotional stuff. But also don't forget in many of these types of unions women just aren't seen in the same way as they are in the west, heck often they aren't even known before the day they get married, so they are in the end just a child bearer and sock washer! In these types of societies, the closeness usually comes from the husbands male friends not from the wives.

In our type of society, the natural progression is that (as said earlier - economically driven often) a pair will set up home together. Once you have gone that route then obviously there are shared bonds with just one, and shared expectations. If you choose to live your life alone then that is slightly different. Why not have a smattering of friends and lovers. But you cannot (imho) get the particular closeness than many crave by spreading it among a few rather than giving it to just one.

I know very few who are self sufficient enough to be able to live in complete happiness alone without the need for another. Many do it, but most would prefer there to be another. The ones who don't usually have a past hurt that prevents them putting that much trust in another person.
And in the end, eventually most meet someone that they just want to spend all their time with, because they feel so good in that persons company. We would all hope that the other person feels the same back don't we? Maybe that's where the pain is caused when people aren't monogamous, because that would mean that although I find you that amazing, you don't reciprocate, which means we don't have an equal balance of love or power.

Dunno, again just musing... love this thread. Hopefully this has added another so now you boys can get going again!
 Nick Thinker
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 136
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 4:36:55 AM
"To Nick? I felt much like summerteeth seemed to that your reaction must have come from experience."

You felt wrong, in a way. It comes from experience, but mainly from the experience of others I have seen. I do not analyse things based on my own experiences only, nor is passion for some issues coming from personal experiences or causes. That would make me a "narrow" thinker.

"As it doesn't actually have to much substance to say that having a SO implies you have no close friends outside the union."

Reality most often says otherwise!

"In my world, that certainly isn't true and I have 2 incredibly close friends that I would do just about anything for, and both are married - I know they feel the same about me."

"My world" extends well beyond the boundaries you have described and includes a much wider sample!

"Surely the crux of the whole thing is whether in ones selt there is a need to be particularly close to a person, as there are some bonds that you just can't get many times over"

There are some pros and MANY cons. More cons today, 2007, than ever before, IMO.

"Yes it is easy to have friends and to screw them,.."
Hey, hey, hang on a minute! Where do you get off referring to this model as "screwing"? You do not screw REAL friends, you make love to them! Of course we are talking of REAL friends. REAL friends. TRUE friends. People you care about without BEING POSSESIVE though!

"... but to have that particular lover who gives you so much extra in your life that you want to spend more of your time with? not so many of them come along."

That is one more reason not to wait or invest too/so much on ONE person.

"The type of unuin being spoken of is the one where secrets are shared and plans are made and one 'becomes one' with another."

That is exactly the "danger"! Thanks for illustrating my point. The couple becomes a fottress closed to the rest of the world.. Instead of bowling alone, people bowl in couples. That is some Society!

"It follows that you can't really do that with two. Even in polygamous unions there is usually a favoured wife, who gets much more of the emotional stuff."
WHO IN EARTH IS TALKING Of "WIVES". I am not! I am not talking of POLYGAMY, for Pete's sake! Did you read any of of my posts? I spoke of a "free person" model!!! VERY DIFFERENT to the model you are referring to in "commenting" on MY posts! I am astounded!

"In our type of society, the natural progression is that (as said earlier - economically driven often) a pair will set up home together. Once you have gone that route then obviously there are shared bonds with just one, and shared expectations."

What is natural anbout the economy, jobs, etc in the world today, according to your notion of "natural"? Please ponder on that!

"If you choose to live your life alone then that is slightly different"

It is better to choose to live the life of a SINGLE person (not an "alone" person, that term is prejudicial in its use) and be prepared for it than to WIND UP "single" years later, with kids, no real friends, UNPREPARED for that! Look at the world around you in USA, Canada, UK, other OECD countries and tell me I am wrong! I just call it as I see it.

"Why not have a smattering of friends and lovers. But you cannot (imho) get the particular closeness than many crave by spreading it among a few rather than giving it to just one"

What closeness are yiu referring to? Sexual? Mental? Intellectual? Financial coop? "Sense" of security? This is supposed to be a "clinical", analytical thread, but I seee mostly vague wishful thinking in most of the posts! REALITY CHECK SVP!!!

"I know very few who are self sufficient enough to be able to live in complete happiness alone without the need for another."

You said it. My point exactly. Pls ponder on what you wrote! What that means! Take another look at it, from a different angle. Ask yourself: Why are they not? Are they really not, or have they been socially conditioned to think that they are not? Please ponder on that, cause, else, my writing is in vain.

"Many do it, but most would prefer there to be another."
Cause they have been fed, especially women, the social propaganda that they NEED a man! That is so untrue! What they need is SELF CONFIDENCE! And a better social model!

"The ones who don't ususally have a past hurt that prevents them putting that much trust in another person."

Or wisdom! Hard learned lessons!

"And in the end, eventually most meet someone that they just want to spend all their time with, because they feel so good in that persons company."

With all the risks down the line. At best, it becomes SERIAL MONOGAMY! Wishful LTRs, turned into serial MTRs. And at 55 or 60 ....... Where is the logic in that!

"We would all hope that the other person feels the same back don't we? "
Hope springs eternal

"Maybe that's where the pain is caused when people aren't monogamous, because that would mean that although I find you that amazing, you don't reciprocate, which means we don't have an equal balance of love or power."

For how long? 12 months? 9.5 weeks?
Reality check please!!! Time to hop to another thread where REASONING not HOPING is the main course! Take care ya all!
 Summer Teeth
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 137
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 5:15:12 AM
Nick, are you going to address the question I had about your hypothesis on "energy" or are you going to avoid it?

Come on now. You spoke about propaganda, and one aspect of propaganda is being vague and not wanting to define anything. Support your previous posts. Make a real stand. I applaud your emotional excitement, but when are you going to say something about your own theories that really makes sense?
 wanderer1999
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:09:56 AM

European civilization "developed" later than it did in West Asia and the Middle East. Polygamy became an established norm in nomadic cultures, including the Hebrews, way before the founding of Islam (a religion rising out of Judaism, as is Christianity). There are reasons why polygamy became a part of both Judaic and Islamic culture, or at least a reason why ideas about marriage are expressed so differently in those cultures--or their early manifestations--from what they are in the civilizations growing out of western Europe. Western Europe is and has historically been a civilization based on land ownership or land-tenantcy--and the inheritance of either land or rights to tenantcy--whereas nomadic cultures (the Hebrews, the Bedouin tribes of the Arab peninsula) did not have the concern of land inheritance informing the development of their marriage patterns. Land, and its importance to the status as well as the wealth of medieval Europeans, when Christian civilization was being developed, was central to the importance of monogamy, and the practice of primogeniture (the passing of wealth to the oldest legitimate son) both contributed to and reflected this. That's not to say that no men had mistresses in medieval "Christian" Europe, but concubinage tended to only be practiced OPENLY, throughout the history of post-Roman European civilization, by those who could AFFORD to offer support to the offspring of their extra-marital unions.

It's also interesting that Christian civilization is the only WIDESPREAD civilization that has embraced the idea of absolute celibacy as an ideal and real lifestyle choice--in Catholicism, the founding faith of post-Roman Western Europe. The entrenchment of the idea that sex itself is a sin surely contributed to the idea of marriage as a holy institution, its holiness providing the comfort that sex within it is allowable, if only (according to some Christian believers still) for the purpose of procreation. Even if you reject that idea, the fact that it is part of the cultural memory (and our cultural education) must contribute to the continuing romanticization of monogamy, something which I myself (despite my ambivalence ) both romanticize and embrace.


I was going to write something extensive, but decided to be lazy. This little summation is from http://www.libchrist.com/bible/adultery.html. They got some other interesting stuff there. Granted, they have their own agenda (who doesn't?), but their analysis of early christian and judaic law/philosophy is generally accurate.

Enjoy...


How Sex Was Made A Sin
The Emperor Constantine in about 300 A.D. was perhaps the world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. Christianity was perhaps the only thing left to try to hold the Roman Empire together. While the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the army for controlling large and diverse populations.

Augustine (354-430 A.D.) was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.

Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation.

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.

Making polygamy a "sin" was a slow process. It was even common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway).


In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times), but it was about MONEY!

Polygyny (many wives for 1 man) was the norm due to the male-dominated society and the fact a man's status was determined by the number of children he fathered. Today, women should enjoy equal rights and sex can be for pleasure and an expression of sincere love.
 Alexandra001
Joined: 3/4/2007
Msg: 139
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:45:39 AM
Nothing like starting Easter Sunday off with a sermon on Christianity ...lol
Let us pray
 lookandlearn
Joined: 12/9/2006
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:48:02 AM
Goodness me Nick, sensitive? I commented on your posts at the very start, mostly by commending the intelligence, the rest was on topic, not pointed to your particular threads. Just because YOU chose to start using terms like polyamorous /monoamourous instead of polygamous / monogamous doesn't necesarily mean I wanted to persue that line of thinking!

Now TO this thread.. (your post)

Social conditioning can not be cast aside as though it doesn't exist. How many in the world actually DO make choices for themselves outside of their social conditioning? Look at countries that have a state religion and then look how many in that country follow that religion, very few go against the religion of their parents. In many cases social conditioning is much of what makes us what we are. The very reason that we apologise for bumping into someone, why we eat the way we do, why sleep the way we do, why our beds are the way they are, why our food is the way it is, why we eat the way we do. So of course the way we tend to follow our lives will follow very much in the same way. You have found (have you not) that most who are answering your musings find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind it, of course its to do with social conditioning. I don't have much knowledge here to back this up, but I would presume that societies have arisen the way they have due to ease and circumstances. Sure maybe things change so that certain ideals need to be questioned, but at the beginning there will only be one or two flying the banner of change, which could well be what you are doing here, but at this point in time, it is probably too early to change the way people think, while there is still hope and while people still have the vague notion that 'pairing' is natural.

Personally I would rather be optimistic for an ideal, that could well fall down round my ankles could work, than be pessimistic and make do with something that doesn't actually suit or please me.

Most of us are only the first or second generation of the divorce culture, many of us have parents or grandparents who stayed married for life. This is a very new time in history for the singles culture.


What closeness are yiu referring to? Sexual? Mental? Intellectual? Financial coop? "Sense" of security? This is supposed to be a "clinical", analytical thread, but I seee mostly vague wishful thinking in most of the posts! REALITY CHECK SVP!!!

I have (and know many others who have also (outside and inside my world) before you say it's too small a group to count) had this type of relationship(for me twice). Both lasted for about 10 years. Had there been others in the equation who knows whether it would have lasted a shorter or longer time. For some reason you seem to feel that by having more partners means tht you will always have someone in your life. That doesn't necesarily follow. If all keep trying to make sure they have back ups in case one of the group drops out, no one is going to give an awful amount of themselves, or enough to make a particularly strong union.



"Yes it is easy to have friends and to screw them,.."
Hey, hey, hang on a minute! Where do you get off referring to this model as "screwing"? You do not screw REAL friends, you make love to them! Of course we are talking of REAL friends. REAL friends. TRUE friends. People you care about without BEING POSSESIVE though!


I find this particularly interesting. Defining what is making love as opposed to defining what is screwing? Screwing has the notion of casual/fun/recreational. (for me) making love has (again for me) the notion of touching someone's soul. By definition, I don't have that much in me to be able to give that to more than one person at a time. I wasn't being judgemental there, and I'm sorry if the choice of words offended you.

In the situation you are talking about, if two women who were both 'real true friends' both needed you at the same time for some reason, how would you decide where your loyalty lay first?

I haven't been judgemental to you, I don't think, if I have I apologise.
But your saying 'reality check please' - we all have different realities!

And please don't run away - you are needed here !! ;-)
 Nick Thinker
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 141
Mono, Duo, Oligo, Poly
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:59:38 AM
"And please don't run away - you are needed here !!"One should not stay where one is needed. One should stay where is wanted (see need vs. want theories). And assuming one also wants to. * "Summer" can inform and entertain you all by himself (aka alone or "monos"). And others can join in. It is not fair to mono-polize or duo-polize or oligo-polize a discussion. * Poly-logizing is not good! Poly-polizing is. * BTW: A thread is a thread and a post is a post. Final food for thought on the mono-gamy topic: What is the opposite of "Mono"? "Poly"? Are ya sure? * The philosopher rests! The weather is beautiful, too beautiful for such "deep" discussions. Peace to ya all. See ya in some other thread! I do not like mono-thread relations or one post stands. All in moderation! Mono and poly are extreme notions (outliers) .
 Alexandra001
Joined: 3/4/2007
Msg: 142
Mono, Duo, Oligo, Poly
Posted: 4/8/2007 7:21:55 AM
Damn, trying to back track and read all the posts and I had a comment about something Nick said. He's off into the wild blue yonder. I'll comment anyway.

...
<div class="quote">Cause they have been fed, especially women, the social propaganda that they NEED a man! That is so untrue! What they need is SELF CONFIDENCE! And a better social model!


Being a SELF CONFIDENT woman, I know your statement was not meant to be insulting. When you make a statement like that, it would be more accurate to say “some people need self confidence”. Let me add that there are a lot of men out there who are not attracted to strong confident women.
In the stock market I need to diversify my investments incase the bottom falls out and I end up with nothing. I do not treat people as commodities; I have no need to diversify in my love life. When a relationship ends with a S.O, I'm not afraid of being a solo act, I rather enjoy my own company.
 Nick Thinker
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 143
Mono, Duo, Oligo, Poly
Posted: 4/8/2007 7:28:23 AM
From the pool: When you are right you are right: "...When what MANY (women and men) need is more SELF CONFIDENCE". * Solo vs Mono? Hm! Let us all ponder on the notions! * Risk management theory does not apply to commodities only, it applies to all facets of life! Ciao!
 Alexandra001
Joined: 3/4/2007
Msg: 144
Mono, Duo, Oligo, Poly
Posted: 4/8/2007 7:41:28 AM
Risk management theory does not apply to commodities only, it applies to all facets of life!


Commodities do not have feelings, people do. If I treat ppl as such, I have to expect the same in return. I set the bar much higher.


Siyanora, time to go!!
 Artistee
Joined: 7/24/2006
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Mono, Duo, Oligo, Poly
Posted: 4/8/2007 9:13:05 AM
It's hard enough being in a monogamous relationship for me...without switching things into POLY mode...

As for marriage?...Personally, I'd LOVE more than one wife!

...But I'm niether Islamic, nor Mormon...

...And it's illegal in most areas...

...Besides, I couldn't afford it anyway!!!!
 Dany1180
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 9:21:21 AM

There are so many "why do people cheat?" posts. This includes "why do guys cheat," and "why do gals cheat?" type posts. I think we should really face this question - Why are people monogamous? Why do we feel compelled to stay faithful to a partner for however long we are together?

We have to answer this from a game theory perspective, an evolutionary/biological perspective, and an emotional/moral perspective.

Maybe then, and only then can we really answer why people cheat. Are we supposed to cheat in the first place and that it really isn't cheating but following our true nature. How about the poly folk...and the closed group marriages?

Why do people pair up in monogamous relationships?


Because monogamy, with someone you deeply love, is ultimately more satisfying than meaningless casual sex irrespective of the number of partners.

From experience at least, the act of casual sex pales in comparison with making love to someone you really care about. It's like comparing tofu to real meat.
(sorry to all the vegetarians out there!)
 rune3
Joined: 7/13/2006
Msg: 147
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 10:02:25 AM
I've never felt that there was anything really morally wrong with not being monogamous. There is something wrong however with disrespecting the feelings of the person that you are with and if the other person values monogamy, then that is something you must be able to live by if you are involved with them: it is not love to tell them they shouldn't feel that way or to disregard their feelings.

Within a relationship I've never had an impulse to be anything but monogamous, despite not feeling that such instincts would be either unnatural or wrong. However, the relationship I am now in shows me why people care about monogamy. When you are in a deep, intimate, connected relationship there is absolutely no space for another person in your heart and thoughts so fully and deeply. There would be no time that you want to spend with another because your special someone is the one you want to be with in every moment. There is a feeling that you cannot give enough of yourself to your special someone as it is, without having another similar relationship to give to.

So the reason why monogamy is important is because people do recognise that a deeply involved heart can only be deeply involved with One... just as you can't hold two conversations at once without taking away from one. You can hold multiple shallow, uninvolved conversations at once, but if it's a real heart-to-heart, your attention must be only on that. People value monogamy because they recognise that anything else indicates a shallow kind of relationship.
 prolibertate
Joined: 9/11/2005
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 10:25:17 AM

I've seen lots of posts referring to animals who mate "for life"--and so it's natural--as as well as lots of posts referring to cultures in which polygamy is (or was) the norm--so not everyone is monogomous...so is it natural?


Interesting points..>Some animals mate for life while others don't...it appears that the 'human' animal does the same...Why? I'd say it's more choice than anything else...people decide what's right for them and that's how they live their life. Some are into monogamous relationships, some are into casual ones; some would rather have multiple 'wives' (though why no one ever wants multiple husbands is a mystery to me), and other would rather have no spouse. Some people are very sexual, while others are only semi; then there are others who are asexual. IMO, it all boils down to choice...and then seeking out those who are like-minded. As long as people are consenting adults, truthful about it, and no one gets hurt, who really cares why they do it?
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 10:29:03 AM


The other reason is, I've known a polyamorous couple for 30 years.



Not A does not mean B.
Saying NO to a polyamorous couple model does not mean YES to monogamy!

And speaking personally for myself does not translate into a prescription for anyone else.



I doubt this.

Google: bilingual children vocabulary -- no academic agreement on the subject, actually.


To cite a couple that have "made it" for 30 years as a negative aspect of polyamority in a world crawling with failed monogamous relationships is, frankly, staggering.


Since I know many many monogamous couples who have made it 30 plus years, and only one polyamorous one who has, I don't personally find it staggering as an example. (And yes, I do know more who have *tried* monogamy than polyamory, but NOT the same ratio of success. Since I came to "sexual maturity/freedom" in the 70's, and Open Marriage was the new bible, I know a great many people who tried it. And only the one couple who made it. Of the monogamous preference, the rate is close to 75/80%. And yes, I do understand this is neither a scientific sampling nor study. Just my personal observation among my friendship circles.


You see deep in their souls?

Gosh, you don't?


Just expressing my personal feelings and preferences. And how I, personally, came to make my own choice. Not trying to convince anyone else. Nor pass judgment on anyone else's life choices.


.
 dawn1114
Joined: 2/27/2006
Msg: 150
view profile
History
Why are people monogamous?
Posted: 4/8/2007 10:54:00 AM

Since I know many many monogamous couples who have made it 30 plus years, and only one polyamorous one who has, I don't personally find it staggering as an example. (And yes, I do know more who have *tried* monogamy than polyamory, but NOT the same ratio of success. Since I came to "sexual maturity/freedom" in the 70's, and Open Marriage was the new bible, I know a great many people who tried it. And only the one couple who made it.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't know any polyamorous or "open marriage" couples (or if I do, I don't know about it), so I can't make any real-life comparisons. Come to think of it, I also know lots of "monogomous" couples who have "made it" for decades, but, again, the same applies: except for my close friends, I don't actually KNOW that they're monogomous. Complicated.

I haven't gone to the linguistics site you mentioned, but will check it later, after I finish another bout of snow shovelling. My thoughts are still initially that since much of the world today is bi- or multilingual, the premise must somehow be flawed. I will check it out, though.


You see deep in their souls?
Gosh, you don't?

Can't say that I do. Or would want to.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Why are people monogamous?