In defense of monogamy.

[redqueen]

Too often I see people proclaiming as if they were the arbiters of truth that humans weren't "meant" to be monogamous. (Which makes me wonder... "meant"? Meant by who? Their creator?)

The truth is that monogamy is a choice. While evolution did favor people having more than one mate, we are way past the desperate need for diversity in the gene pool..

If you choose not to be monogamous, well bully for you. Just be honest with your partner, if you have one.

If you choose to be monogamous, please don't be shouted down by the masses trying to normalize philandering.

That is all.

[xchrom]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[rd_kent]

27. What does "..." mean?

I see you and many others here on DU do this. What for? In this case, you put a smiley eating popcorn, so I assume you are just sitting back, watching the thread. If that is the case, why post a comment telling everyone that you have nothing to say on the matter? Is this just a way of upping your post count?

[question everything]

45. Well, yes, like the anonymous "U"

instead of just ignoring a thread, some just have to "U" it, a great way to bypass the rules of DU that prohibit calling on or harassing or stalking or belittling another DUer.

As you can see from the avatar of this person, s/he is gay and perhaps sees the OP as promoting only heterosexual monogamy.

Just a guess.

[Toasterlad]

85. Generally, It Means the OP Is Pure Flamebait: an Intentionally Stupid Post Designed to Stir the Pot.

Some people enjoy watching. Human nature. Everyone slows down to look at car crashes.

[shadowknows69]

104. I need to go edit about 100 posts of mine then

I swear I thought it generally meant a comment of agreement. That's how I've always used it. Or of silent tribute.

[raccoon]

105. Me too, Shadow. nt

[redqueen]

108. It doesn't mean anything specific in that usage really.

The meaning depends entirely on context.

[Kalyke]

106. Except this one isn't.

What was inflammatory about the OP? That (s)he believes in monogamy? That those who don't should be respectful of those of us who do?

Respect is now flame bait?

[MoonRiver]

2. Thanks. It does get creepy around here sometimes.

I never wanted anything but a monogamous relationship, and that's what I've had for 20 plus years. Seems to agree with my hubby too. :)

[rd_kent]

28. As far as YOU know.......

:sarcasm:

[MoonRiver]

32. Very funny.

We are monogamous.

[seabeyond]

56. he's jealous...

wink.

[seabeyond]

55. it gets soooo

creepy around here sometimes, that at a point it was really fuckin me up and hubby said was gonna block the site, lol lol.

i am with you. easy enough for me and mine

[MoonRiver]

102. I think the bottom line is that some people just can't do commitments.

They try to rationalize it by saying they're just hard wired to sleep around, but the issue is really psychological for them. IMHO.

[ElboRuum]

3. I detect personal investiture here.

That is all.

[redqueen]

8. Well yes.

I'm not currently in a relationship, but if I were to be in one, I'd want it to be monogamous.

[ElboRuum]

14. So this is more of a statement in the abstract?

Funny, how you phrased things made me think that there was some personal concrete situation that motivated your OP. Need to get my sensors recalibrated, I suppose.

[redqueen]

17. Well it was inspired by comments in another thread.

There's a thread about how someone feels it's unfair that married couples have different privileges than unmarried couples, and in that thread the worn-out 'monogamy isn't natural!' nonsense popped up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Those poor, oppressed monogamists.

:crazy:

[redqueen]

6. lol... no... just refuting junk science.

:hi:

[PVnRT]

7. Yes, that's exactly the point of the thread

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. indeed. how will they ever live the oppression down? and not to mention the sheer stigma attached to

monogamy?

[ismnotwasm]

5. Word up girlfriend

I'm monogamous by choice. I spent many years thinking it "wasn't my nature"-- this in a society that has many special names for women who don't "choose" monogamy. Now, reminiscing over the 19 years with my one and only husband, I found monogamy is very much to my taste, and surprise of all surprises, it suits my nature.

My rule of thumb regarding sexual behaviors is "don't be an asshole" Simple, yes?

[ashling]

12. Ya know, that's a pretty good rule regarding Any kind of relationship

... and just in general

[TexasObserver]

9. Recommend. For those who choose it, monogamy is great.

If there are people who don't mind not being monogamous, that's fine by me for them to live that way. But we are animals who generally trend to pair bonding, and therefore that is the most common of the several "natural" options to humans in bonding with others.

The monogamous pair bonding is necessary to raise offspring for the many years they require such close parenting to survive.

All who accept such a committed pair bond, whether gay, straight, or bi, owe a duty of loyalty and fidelity in sex and love to their partner. If one doesn't wish to be monogamous, one should never lie to a partner to violate that commitment.

[ieoeja]

10. "we are way past the desperate need for diversity in the gene pool"

Have not spent much time in Appalachia, I see.

:)

[Kalyke]

107. Uhh.... maybe you need to learn some respect, as well.

Not all of us in Appalachia have the genetic make-up of pig-boy from "Deliverance."

There is diversity in my gene pool (Native American, Irish, Scotch, English, German and Scandinavian).

:eyes:

[ieoeja]

122. Lighten up, Francis.

:toast:

[mamaleah]

11. Somehow I haven't felt oppressed or forced into monogamy at all in my marriage

I must be an unnatural freak. :D

Thank you for this thread. It seems to some, to be a true Democrat, Liberal, whatever you want to label yourself, you must be against anything and everything traditional.

[ashling]

13. For 29+ years my wife and I have been extremely married. . .

and exceptionally monogamous.

[ElboRuum]

15. Why am I picturing your wedding at a supercross stadium?

"Extremely married?!"

[ashling]

25. Extreme Marriage

its not for the faint of heart!

:rofl:

[Prophet0621]

16. Monogamy needs to be defended?

I'm new to these boards and feel I must not be up to date on the monogamous discussion that must have gone on. Why would monogamy need to be defended? My feeling toward this and most other things.. to each their own. Nothing wrong with being with only one other person and as long as no one is deceived I see nothing wrong with being with other people if all parties are in agreement.

[Deja Q]

42. Which is why some won't confer for agreement and do it behind their backs...

A poor excuse; couples claimed to be monogamous can cheat too. At least the latter entered some contract.

:shrug:

It's also unprofitable to be honest and ethical. School and church can teach those things, but when big corporation does the opposite, you know where people will go.

Sorry to be a cynic.

[Rhiannon12866]

93. I'm not sure if this is an ongoing discussion, either, but I'm guessing that it relates

to the numerous sex scandals which have figured so prominently in recent news. These male public figures made a promise, before God, which is important to them, to to be faithful when they married their respective wives. They were also extremely critical of anyone else's transgressions (President Clinton). So when they committed more egregious acts (lying to family, staff, their constituents, paying hush money, etc.), this was the height of hypocrisy. I think that this was the start of this discussion... :shrug:

Welcome to DU, Prophet0621! It's great to have you with us! :toast: :hi:

on edit: Ah, ha! Here's the explanation! :think:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6124091&mesg_id=6124379

[Iggo]

18. I would posit that we are NEVER past the need...

...for diversity in the gene pool.

(I see what you're saying, though.)

[redqueen]

20. Yes, we will always need it.

But it's not so desperate a need that couples must breed with other mates in order to ensure the survival of the species.

Perhaps there will come a time when the species gets bottlenecked again, and we need to resort to such a thing... for now, though... using evolutionary evidence as a reason to try to normalize philandering is weak as hell. IMO. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. As my ex-second wife put it, we are designed for serial monogamy.

The typical monogamous bonding lasts 7-10 years, which is sufficient time to assure the survivability for 2-4 offspring. There's a reason for the dreaded seven-year itch.

Problem is the social expectation of lifetime pairing does not coincide with the biological norm of single-decade pairing.

[redqueen]

21. It's simply a choice. It has nothing to do with kids.

I think at this point, given the ubiquitousness of the arguments against marriage and monogamy, there's no longer a social expectation of lifetime pairing.

[Deja Q]

40. Quite the contrary; the expectation - as defined by "peers" - is multiple, haphazard, pairings,

free clinics, and taking drugs for the rest of one's life.

That's not living. That's tragedy.

[redqueen]

65. It's different for different people...

based on how they were raised, the examples of partnerships they were exposed to growing up, etc.

But it's certainly not the case that a lifelong, monogamous relationship is the expected norm anymore. Not from my perspective, anyway.

[philly_bob]

22. Worst case: one partner claims monogamy but cheats. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. K&R

Redqueen, as usual, is correct :)

[redqueen]

24. Aw, thanks.

:P :hi:

[etherealtruth]

29. Serial monogamy ...

... appears to be what I am capable of. I can't imagine myself not being monogamous (its what I need and what I want) ... I just can't seem to take it for more than 7 years at a stretch.

(Not than anyone cares ....but, I need to end the relationship prior to ending the monogamy .... if that makes sense).

[redqueen]

36. As long as you let your partners know up front that that's your limit...

I don't see the problem. It all boils down to honesty about our expectations. For those who insist that monogamy is unnatural and impossible, they should realize that is only true for some, and that they should be sure their partners are aware of how they feel about the issue.

[etherealtruth]

37. Sadly, I always believe ....

"this time it will be different" .... but, at the ripe old age of 47 I am very honest about my history.

I am actually very envious of those with enduring relationships. it takes a lot of work and I admire those that make it work.

[tavalon]

30. I was all ready to get fiesty on you

But while the title provoked me, the actual post is one I can stand by. Unlike which gender one is attracted to, the form one chooses for partnering (one or two or....) is a choice and one that we each, as higher sentient beings, get to make. And most important of all, just because me and my partners have chosen poly, it doesn't mean we are philanderers - that's one I've gotten more than a time or two.

[redqueen]

31. Ah no... poly is not the same as philandering.

I've had poly friends who were in open relationships and poly friends who were only polygamous with their chosen partners. It's easy for me to consider these nuances, but I suppose not everyone has been exposed to such a variety of domestic partnerships.

[tavalon]

33. Don't I know it!

One of the reasons most of the folks I hang out with are polys is because it's just too taxing to deal with the bs.

[pitohui]

34. choose? i wasn't aware people chose their orientation/desires/drives

i don't think it's realistic to claim that people "choose" to be monogamous

some have a lower sex drive and it's easy for them to fall in line w. the religious line of crap

others not so easy

choice is prob. not involved anywhere in the equation

i'm not asking right wing hypocrites to stop fucking, i'm asking them to stop fucking while telling me to keep an aspirin between my knees...if people would just be realistic about what human nature is, the world would be a better plaace

i have never seen any evidence that monogamy is a "choice," the opposite seems evident, after all, it is a truism that a cheater always cheats and can't stop?

on edit and reading further -- oh, i see, for some reason you think being "poly" -- grinding the face of the one who has the lower sex drive and would be happy to be monogamous -- into the fact that you're cheating somehow makes it better and cooler in every way? hokey dokey then

[redqueen]

35. No, it has nothing to do with religion.

What an unbelievably stupid thing to say... there are lots of monogamous ahtheists.

And yes, I've heard that cliche about people who have cheated, but just like all absolutes, it falls far short of reality.

Some people who cheat do it just because they can... for those the cliche is true. Some are sincerely sorry for it, and their relationships are probably the ones most often able to recover from betrayal. For them, not so much.

As for it being something one is completely unable to control, sorry, I don't buy that.

[pitohui]

44. but if a poster said he was gay, or a child molester, then you WOULD buy

apparently sexual desire is a choice when you would like it to be a choice and not so much when it's inconvenient to believe so

it can't be changed when common opinion admits it can't be changed, but it is a choice when bill clinton does it

as i said before, allrighty then!

[redqueen]

54. Why are you bringing sexual orientation into this?

As for child molesters... there are pedophiles and pederasts... you could make the case that pedophiles have no choice but to feel the way they do... but pederasts do have a choice whether or not to act on those urges.

In the same way, people have a choice as to whether or not to act on their urges.

Seems very simple to me.

[pitohui]

57. it seems simple to you because you've never experienced a strong urge

it is not so simple for the majority of the population that does have urges

teen abstinence programs fail because it is not possible to have a "choice," you can exercise it a few times but ultimately it fails

staying in the closet fails because it is not possible to exercise "choice," sure for a while but at the end of the day, ultimately it fails

we are not angels, we are animals, as such we are a prisoner of our physical programming

to pretend otherwise is arrogance and gets its own comeuppance

[redqueen]

62. You're completely wrong. Might want to stop assuming things...

Lots of people have urges. Lots of people can control them. Whether or not we control them is (can you guess?) yes, a choice.

[Deja Q]

39. I only need 6 words to prove the point:

"Will", "you", "have", "sex", "with", "me" are those 6.

:popcorn:

[pitohui]

47. what do you look like and what do you do? heh heh

admit i don't eat much popcorn, i'm naughty in other ways

[Caliman73]

43. Everything we do involves some kind of choice

Yes our biological and physiological drives are powerful, but they are not uncontrollable. I don't understand what you are even arguing. No one is asking anyone to stop having sex. What the OP is saying is that monogamy is possible and like non-monogamy, it is a choice. I am married. I see other women. They are physically attractive to me. That doesn't mean that I go and try to have sex with those other women. I made a choice to be in an exclusive relationship. Does that stop me from finding other women attractive? No. To me, my commitment to be faithful to my partner is more important than my sexual arousal at the time. Does that make me a better person? Not necessarily. What it does though is keep me from causing pain and suffering to the person I promised to be faithful too. My wife and I talk. We know that there are good looking men and women out there. There are temptations to be unfaithful. We choose not to follow out those temptations. That is a choice.

Being in an open relationship is also a choice. The partners decide that they want to have other partners. There are still rules for those relationships and their can still be cheating in those relationships. The problem is when people try to use "biological imperative" as an excuse for behavior which they know is not acceptable.

[Deja Q]

38. +1,000,000,000,000,000

[redqueen]

60. Heheheh...

are you sure? :P

[proteus_lives]

41. I agree on all points.

:thumbsup:

Make a choice and live with it/abide by it. It's called being an adult.

[pitohui]

46. speaks a person of low hormone level

look folks how long do we have to argue about this in two thousand fucking 09?

sex/orientation is not a choice, we are prisoners of our desires, too bad so sad but that's the way it is, we are fucking mammals (HIGHER mammals not fucking lemurs) and if that offends you know what? the truth hurts

no one wakes up in the morning and says alrighty then, i'll be a fucking perv, i'll be a cheat, i'll be gay, i'll be whatever

those who have never known hunger should STFU already and stop trying to pretend they know what people who have been hungry go thru

[proteus_lives]

48. The stupid....it pains me.

"speaks a person of low hormone level" Translation: Someone with self-control.

Are you really relating orientation with being loyal to a partner? How insulting.


"we are prisoners of our desires"

"those who have never known hunger should STFU already and stop trying to pretend they know what people who have been hungry go thru"

:rofl: Are you sixteen or do you just write bodice-rippers?

All you're doing is justifying cheating and low-behavior. If you're sexually attracted to someone while you're with someone else, you practice what we adults call choice/self-control. I've been in situations with people I'd have loved to have sex with. But I was in a relationship at the time and it would have been a betrayal of trust to the person I was with.

Oh, and it's a betrayal of health. Ya know, STDs? Or they another thing that can't stand in the way of your "hunger"? :rofl:

[seabeyond]

50. you know

i had to laugh at that post, but also be a bit insulted the poster would suggest all a matter of low whatever. if a person CHOSES to have a higher standard, then the one who must defends goes with a personal attack.

but you did so damn well on your reply (better than i could) and hit all the posts

i wont bother responding to that poster.

hooorah... to you just for being right on

[proteus_lives]

63. From a veteran DUer like you, that means a lot.

Thanks and I've always enjoyed your posts too. (Whither my reaction was 'I agree' or 'outrageous!')

:fistbump:

[seabeyond]

66. lol

(Whether my reaction was 'I agree' or 'outrageous!')

i knew that would come into play. lol

:toast:

[pitohui]

52. it's the 21st century and you never heard of a fucking rubber?

oh FFS -- the tired puritan bullshit of pretending it's about health

by your logic if someone is gay, they should keep their pants zipped and practice self control, what's wrong w. facing reality and just using a rubber, by your logic if someone is a teen ager they should just keep it zipped, again, NOT gonna happen, abstinence fails more often than any other form of disease prevention/birth control AND WE ALL FUCKING KNOW THIS

monogamy is not natural and for those who think it is...they are lying to themselves and to the rest of us, it gets tired

[proteus_lives]

72. You are adorable!

Your "logic" is that one of who avoids personal responsibility at any cost.

"by your logic if someone is gay, they should keep their pants zipped and practice self control" :rofl: You'll need to show how my statement matches up to that. But gay people can have sex as much as they want. I wasn't talking about abstinence, I was talking about self-control, respect and loyalty.

You see, we adults believe that cheating on someone is harmful and if you make a an emotional connection and promise then you can also make a sexual and physical promise. It shows character and understanding.

"monogamy is not natural and for those who think it is...they are lying to themselves and to the rest of us, it gets tired"

I've never cheated on a woman who I was in a relationship with and I feel pretty natural. I've had one-night stands, drunken hook-ups and casual sex with a friend. But never while I was involved with someone. I've been in situations where I knew I could have a NS hook-up and no one would ever know. But I was in love and in a relationship and that feeling was better and stronger the physical attraction I was feeling at the moment. (This makes sense to the emotionally mature.)

You're repeated insistence that that we are animals who aren't responsible for our behavior is just an emotional wall you put up so you don't have to feel bad.

You want an open relationship? Fine but tell the person up-front and if they don't want that, walk away.

And trust me, if you love someone, you can keep your zipper up.

[redqueen]

58. "Are you really relating orientation with being loyal to a partner?"

Yeah... that surprised me too.

[pitohui]

64. i'm relating having a sex drive w. having a sex drive -- it is not a choice

it's programmed, it is NOT a choice

i realize people prefer to lie to themselves on this topic so whatev but you guys really look immature when you pretend it's all wise and adult to just suffer and keep your desires unfulfilled for your one and only lifetime


i thought it was DEMOCRATIC underground, not puritans underground or freeper's bullshit underground

can't we even be honest on an anonymous forum?

people cheat, even people who go down on their knees every day and beg god to stop them from cheating -- do you really think these republican fucktards WANT to be laughing stocks?

we are more forgiving of our own because we're more realistic and because "our own" is not trying to chase people down over a blowjob...not because "our own" doesn't get bjs

[seabeyond]

67. what fuckin blow your mind assumptions.... bah hahhaha. n/t

[redqueen]

69. lol... no... having a sex drive is not a choice... acting on it is.

And if you think it's the people with self control who look immature... well... okay then!

[Caliman73]

97. You do know that the sex drive and orientation are not the only things that are wired right?

By you magnificent logic we should not blame pedophiles because you know, they are just sexually aroused by children. I mean we are slaves to our drives right? Studies show that rapists and pedophiles have a different brain chemistry and different levels of hormones so hey, they are only responding to their physiology. They are just people with different drives so why not let them live next door to you and your family?

People should be allowed to beat the crap out of others because too you know, anger and the flight and/or fight response is programmed in, so if you piss me off enough and I am driven to rage and revenge then well, I am only following my programming. I mean those testosterone levels, whew! they can certainly cause levels of aggression that lead to increased violence. Can't blame people though, they are responding to nature not to societal forces which only seek to repress all that good ol' humanity.

Honesty is knowing that we have it within ourselves to do horrific things to each other, killing, stealing, betrayal, cruelty, etc...Humanity is knowing that we have a choice, and the obligation to curtail our more destructive drives for the good of the society in which we choose to live.

[redqueen]

109. ...

:thumbsup:

[misanthrope]

77. "Low behavior?" So you believe you're somehow "more evolved" or "better" than those...

...who have different sexual lifestyles?

[proteus_lives]

81. No.

I have no problem with people want live different lifestyles. I'm talking about cheaters and people use "lifestyles" to justify emotional and sexual immaturity. Yeah, I'm then better then that.

[misanthrope]

92. Have fun on your superiority high horse...

...You're well on your way to hard right conservatism.

[proteus_lives]

94. Really?

Loyalty and maturity are "hard right" values? That's a surprise to me.

I thought they were part of basic human decency. It's very liberal if you ask me.


"High Horse" :rofl:

[misanthrope]

76. "Higher" is indicative of a sort of value judgement...

...on natural selection, something borne of species conceit. Stop thinking of evolution as a ladder or tree and more as an expanding circle.

[Caliman73]

99. Should your expanding circle include sex between an adult and a child then?

There are people who are genuinely sexually aroused by children. Is that part of the ever expanding circle? How about those who derive pleasure from hurting others. Sexual sadism is a lifestyle too is it not? Studies of many serial killers show that they derive their life pleasure from the various acts of violence against others. Where does your circle stop expanding? Where you say it does?

Sorry, but we are a collectivist species and we choose our rules in order to live collectively with the most harmony possible. There are definitely ideas and practices that we need to challenge our society with and learn to accept, but there are also those which are destructive and should remain or become unacceptable. What those ideas and practices constitute are debatable and we continue to have that debate.

[smalll]

88. Those big-sticking players who have never known betrayal, rejection and abandonment should stop

trying to pretend they know what people who have go through.

[seabeyond]

49. who says evolution choses to have more than one mate. i can challenge that

it is not a known. when it is argued it is that male must spread seed (religion?) and cause a woman is limited during time of preg leaves male to continue spreading seed.

that is how they come to their assumptions, guesses that male was "meant" to have more than one mate.

i can as easily argue that while male gets woman preg, during that time he is too busy protecting, feeding and caring for mate to insure his seed survives adn doesnt have time to be spreadin it.

[Gwendolyn]

53. You could easily argue that an alpha male could handle a harem.

Both in terms of spreading genes and fighting to protect it from usurpers. The evidence of that is all around us in the animal world. And you could also argue that survival of one's genes would persevere better through volume impregnating rather than quality impregnating. Get 10 women pregnant and there was a better chance one or some would survive to spread your genes, rather than putting all your eggs/sperm in one basket with the great chance that she would die, violently or otherwise.

[seabeyond]

59. you could also argue

that since the female wants preg with alpha but cared for by beta, alpha male would impreg and beta would raise the baby

the point being.... it isnt fact, it is guessing

[Gwendolyn]

68. No, it's based on evidence.

That evidence is still all around us today when observing less evolved creatures. We developed toward monogamy once our brain functions evolved to make the most of qualities such as empathy, and when we began to need emotional bonding as well as sexual. There's no shame in admitting that we were once brutish creatures, pitted against predators for survival. Back then, volume of births trumped quality of relationships.

[redqueen]

70. The key word there is "once".

What once was useful from an evolutionary standpoint is no longer necessary, and certainly not beyond our control.

[Gwendolyn]

74. Oh for sure...

but there's nothing to be gained by denying what once was. Or even denying that the impetus to have rampant sex with lots of people still exists within many. They just don't have to get married is all.

And you never know. If our world population is one day decimated for whatever reason, we may yet have to resort to the behavior of our past.

[seabeyond]

78. we dont know

if it is nature or nurture. we dont know if we are evolving or conditioned. i hear the argument for behavior today because of caveman behavior, but we dont know... we make assumptions and guesses. and build theories of who we are and how we are to behave today.

IF the population is decimated today and we were to change behavior, is that because of beginning of time, or living in a reality, survival. if it is survival, does that have anything to do with the evo psycho babble we hear today?

[Gwendolyn]

79. Sure we do.

Look at the way we're built as creatures. We start off small and dumb, go through a period of fecundity which sharply drops as we age, then we die. Then look at other animal species around you and how they behave. Although there is some conditioning, most of the behavior is what we call "instinct."

If the world population was decimated tomorrow, and only ten people survived, the best combo would be more women to the men. The males would be necessary with their superior muscle to fat ratio (I'm estimating the survivor sampling gene pool) in warding off predators and building the huts. But no species could survive without females to give birth to future, hopefully numerous offspring, in order for us to survive as a species. What if only you, your husband, and two 20-year-old females survived. Would it make sense that your husband only have relations with you because you've bonded emotionally, or that he impregnate the others so that there's a better chance of survival for all of you? If the survivors included you and a bunch of males, you'd all probably die off fast. This is just a message board convo, but if it really occurred, the prospect of being few in the world against all odds would probably make you change your mind about monogamy and emotional bonding in exchange for safety in numbers. Fear and instinct would kick in over all else. That's how we started off, so yes, it's beginning of time brain-engrained impetus.

[seabeyond]

80. of course

but that doesnt have anything to do with the argument that it is biological. that is common sense, survival, reality.

[Gwendolyn]

84. Where did we get common sense from?

:) Trial and error. Hundreds of thousands of years worth. And that faint knowledge we have of common sense today with the ability to articulate it, took even more hundreds of thousands of years.

It seems like common sense to you, because you have the brain capacity to reason it through, but a long time ago, when we were grunting creatures, it was just an impetus, an instinct to survive.

I'm not sure why you want to deny we come from the lowliest of beginnings. (As I always say, depending on whether you're religious or not, you either believe you came from dust or the sludge. Same diff but I digress.)

We still wage war like savages today, but somehow you believe that our ideals of sexuality have surpassed that hunger to dominate others? I don't think so. I think our evolution has been balanced.

You can be monogamous and still understand where and how we came to be who we are. :)

[smalll]

89. Yeah, that works biologically -- but it results in a fucked-up society

where concepts such as "all men are created equal," the precious value of each individual human being, democracy, and even, really, freedom itself (as WELL as women's rights) -- where those concepts, fundamentally, will never arise, or at least, can never sustain themselves.

[redqueen]

110. No, they come to those hypotheses - *not* assumptions - by observing physical evidence.

You may not agree with those hypotheses, but they seem sound enough for me.

[fishnfla]

51. monogamous by choice? yes

the option chosen was based on love, and respect.

English Hedge Sparrows are wanton sex addicts though

[pitohui]

61. bless the english hedge sparrow then!

good to know someone has a sense of fun in this world

[redqueen]

71. Heh, many species are...

probably not just a few humans, too. Though some do seek help for it, rather than just... well...

[sendero]

73. What I give up...

... to be monogamous pales in comparison to what I get. It's easy when you find the right partner.

[redqueen]

75. :)

I find that makes all the difference for me, as well.

[ourbluenation]

82. going on 24 years. anyone looks down on me for that I'll shove a pencil up their nose...

brand new one, long and pointy.

[Dappleganger]

112. LOL

21 years married, 25 years together.

Yes we made a choice based on young lust but it turned into something greater than the two of us.

[Toasterlad]

83. Where Have You Seen This Vast Coalition of People Attempting to Destroy Monogamy?

While you're explaining that, allow me to thank you for finally clearly illustrating what a "strawman argument" is. I never really quite understood that until now.

:hi:

[redqueen]

111. Post 14. And it's hardly rare.

Are you seriously claiming you've never personally seen anyone do the 'monogamy isn't natural!' song and dance?

[omega minimo]

86. "The truth is that monogamy is a choice." Does that mean it's not a right?

[smalll]

87. K and R ---

Monogamy is a precious legacy of historical chance, formed through the intersection of the Christian religion, Roman law, and the (unusual) traditions of the German Barbarians.

The norm is polygamy. Without the concept of monogamy, not only would the idea of women's equality have found it impossible to rise into existence, but so too would have the earlier prinicples of the equal rights of man, universal sufferage, or even the legal concept that "every man's home is his castle."


Monogamy also gives us a chance - a CHANCE - that a society can develop relations between the sexes that are other than war and oppression.

And some like to call monogamy part of "patriarchy." Ha! It is to laugh!

[redqueen]

113. Yes, I agree with you about how laughable that claim is.

I know others disagree, but to me that is so off-base as to be farcical.

[Naturyl]

90. Rec'd. For too long on the left....

Anyone advocating or practicing anything remotely traditional or conventional has been treated like toxic waste.

And this is coming from someone who is VERY unconventional in some ways, believe me.

[GaYellowDawg]

91. What I really hate is nonogamy.

You know, when I can't get a date. You've obviously got a parter, be happy with that and quit being so damn preachy.

[redqueen]

114. Why do people love making assumptions? No, I don't have a partner.

You could surely get a date if you'd only lower your standards.

Stop being so impatient. Either stop being picky or stop complaining.

[Prism]

95. Interesting bits of puritanism in this thread.

Really, what it comes down to is whether or not everyone in a relationship is being honest with their partners and treating them with dignity and respect.

Just as people in polyamorous relationships are capable of functioning with a high level of fidelity, self-professed monogamists can be capable of breezily dismissing boundaries and cheating with the worst of them.

Philandering is not a monogamist vs. polyamorous distinction. It's a jerk distinction.

I'm taken aback by the high degree of ignorance, judgementalism, and assumption mongering happening in this thread. Polyamory is not about a lack of impulse control, a sign of immaturity, or a lack of willingness to do hard work in relationships. Polyamory is about people evaluating their lives, relationships, and emotions and trying to come to a loving arrangement that works for all involved. To hear it spoken of in this thread, you'd almost think if someone's not monogamous, they're practically attending orgies (not that there's anything wrong with orgies, and I do beg forgiveness from the orgy community if any offense is communicated in the preceding statement).

I'm monogamous, because that is how my head and heart are wired. Emotionally and intellectually, I know that I need one person in a faithful relationship in order to be contented. If I don't have that, I feel too much hurt, insecurity, and jealousy. It doesn't work for me. I cannot do it and will not do it. Other people, however, will find that other relationships and arrangements suit their emotional landscape better.

It's not about tradition or tearing down or building up. It's about how we treat other people. If we lie and hurt the people we profess to love, whether that is one husband or two girlfriends or what have you, the damage and selfishness involved are the same. If we are faithful to our relationships and strive to make the other person or people happy, then I think we're on the right path. The form these positive and negative attitudes and acts take is less important than whether or not we're carrying out our relationships with integrity and being as careful with the other peoples' feelings as we are with our own.

Anything else is "My way is better / the way things should be." And that is a fairly anti-liberal sentiment. That's missing a forest of individual hearts for a bunch of straight-jacketed trees.

[redqueen]

115. TL/DR past the first few lines.

I'm surprised you somehow missed posts 30-33.

What posts are yout talking about which are denigrating polyamory?

[Rhiannon12866]

96. I think that it requires maturity. When you make a promise, you should keep your word.

And this applies to women as well as to men. Elizabeth Edwards, IMO, said it best. If a woman wants what you have, she should go out and find her own relationship, marriage, partner. Attempting to take something from another woman is extremely disrespectful to women.

[Maru Kitteh]

98. Thanks redqueen. 18 years of monogamy here and still WAY in love.

Not a cakewalk, but worth every minute.

[armyowalgreens]

100. I think the point should be that people should do whatever floats their boat.

2 way? 3 way? 15 way?

I don't give a shit. Do what makes you happy.

[Mythsaje]

101. Well, it could be said that most people aren't really wired that way

If evolution did favor it, biological imperatives still push people in that direction. It's not fair, but the only reason we have such a long history as a culture of "monogamy" is because the woman were locked up (effectively) and the men went out and diddled whatever they could catch). What we CALL monogamy in this day and age probably lasted, historically, about fifty years, until the women were freed from cultural bondage and were no longer considered to be the property of the men. That's about the time divorce rates started spiraling upward.

The irony is that I have no real issue with monogamy. It suits me. I think ONE partner is enough to deal with--who needs the stress of having more than one? Cheating makes no sense. First, the cheater is nearly always caught, sneaking around is fucking stressful, and, like I said, having one intimate partner in your head is enough.

My wife, on the other hand, is by nature polyamorous. Or so she tells me. :shrug:

[redqueen]

116. See post 97. (nt)

[Mythsaje]

117. I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said...

And, what's more, it's a pain in the ass to hunt down a single post in a thread this long based on the number... It's not exactly laid out numerically, after all.

Monogamy, at least the way most of us perceive it, is an illusion... historically speaking. Monogamy, for everyone except the lowest classes, was a one-way street. Women were monogamous because, well, they were locked up and followed everywhere they went (again, except for the lowest classes) while the men went off and fucked whatever they could. In fact, marriage for love is a fairly recent development, overall, and, as we can see, not particularly successful when both partners have the right to leave when it no longer suits them.

Serial monogamy is as close as many people will ever get, I think. What's the divorce rate now? Well over 50%, at least. I really believe people tend to look at things as societal norms that never were. Two co-equal partners in a love-based relationship completely dedicated to one another and not straying is actually an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.

Cheating, from my perspective, is stupid and unethical. If you can't trust yourself not to cheat, don't put yourself in the situation where it might be possible, and/or avoid people who have questionable ethics in that regard.

I also suggest people not enable their friends to do so either. My dad lost a friend once by refusing to cover for him while he was cheating on his wife.

[redqueen]

118. "biological imperatives still push people in that direction"

That's what.

It's very easy to search for a number. Try it sometime.

I disagree with your ideas about women being 'locked up' and unable to cheat in the past. If anything the upper class women were more able to cheat.

[Mythsaje]

124. Upper class? You mean nobility?

What do you think "ladies in waiting" were? Chaperons. Women were not allowed to be alone, unsupervised, with men who were not their relatives. That was why the system existed, to ensure as much as possible that bloodlines remained "pure." Or, rather, so men knew that the heirs they were passing their titles, money, and land to were actually THEIR children. (A reason why matrilineal inheritance has always made more sense).

You can disagree all you want, but that's where many of the complaints about the patriarchy comes from. With good reason. Those who didn't follow the rules laid out for them by the men-folk usually ended up at convents where NO men were to be found. Did it happen? Sure. But I'm not sure why you think it was so rampant. The system was constructed SPECIFICALLY to protect male privilege.

Women were property. Until fairly recently, historically-speaking.

[redqueen]

125. Noblewomen didn't screw around?

Really?

Wow.

All right... well... okay.

[Mythsaje]

129. I'm sure it happened...

But a lot of men went through a lot of trouble to make it as close to impossible as they could manage.

[seabeyond]

130. from what i understand

once they had their heir they were good to go. never new what the father was with the second, third, fourth child.

[redqueen]

133. They screwed around as much as they pleased.

Well, unless there was a chastity belt involved.

So did many peasants for that matter. People are people.

[seabeyond]

134. i am sure.

it is like this generation thinks they discovered oral sex, lol. been around a long time

[Unvanguard]

103. Oh, certainly it shouldn't be opposed on "survival of the species" grounds.

The real problem is different: people in (sexually) monogamous relationships demand of each other a kind of fidelity that is probably inhuman and unnatural for most people, and when that fidelity is betrayed (as, by its very nature, it very often will be), otherwise healthy and loving relationships between compatible people are damaged unnecessarily.

Further, there is a kind of obtuseness about many of the assumptions underlying monogamy: people often think, for instance, that sexual exclusivity is part and parcel of true love, when in fact there is no reason to believe that even the strongest and most exclusive love should make someone immune to being attracted to other people, or to being bored with continual sex with the same partner, or to desiring something sexually that the person he or she loves cannot provide. So culturally we bind the idea of romantic love, which virtually everyone seeks for himself or herself, to the ideal of sexual monogamy, and so people who believe in the former come to be unnecessarily concerned with ensuring the latter, with the result that, again, otherwise workable and loving relationships are damaged.

Conversely, of course, people discontent with the idea of sexual exclusivity come to view marriage and committed relationships as stifling and repressive institutions, with the result being the weakening of the appeal and cultural strength of family life, a mode of living that, in some permutation, probably is best for most people.

Obviously, if it works for you, that's great: there's certainly nothing morally wrong with monogamy, and your personal choices are in any case your own business. But our society needs to graduate to a cultural recognition that it is not the only or even the best legitimate way to have relationships with others.

[Evoman]

119. "Monogamy would be a lot easier if there weren't so many hot chicks around"

Is what one of my buddies used to say. Fucker would constantly cheat on his girlfriends. Funny thing, though, is that he has since gotten married, and as far as I know, never cheated on this girl (and I would find out pretty quick).

Myself...never cheated. Not that I've never been tempted. The fact is, if I didn't love my gf so much, I would probably fuck around. But I can't ever cheat on her, because I can't risk her ever finding out and leaving me. Even if I travelled to another country, and the chance of her finding out was extremely low, I wouldn't take it. Especially since there is a chance I could get an std. No thanks.

I guess I'm not so much morally against cheating. I understand it. Hell, I probably would have done it if I had ever bothered to go out with a girl for longer than a month at a time. I guess the stigma doesn't bother me much.

[redqueen]

126. Yeah but the point is, whatever the reason for the choice... it's a choice.

Whether it's because you don't want to lose the person you're with... because you don't want to hurt them... because you consider your word to be worth something... my only point is that it's a choice, and people aren't somehow biologically 'forced' to screw around, that's all.

[Prophet 451]

120. "trying to normalize philandering"

Might wanna think about the value-judgement inherent in that choice of words.

[redqueen]

127. I've thought about it.

And I'm okay with it, thanks.

[Prophet 451]

131. So you're not actually defending monogamy

(and incidently, defending from whom?), you're attacking the non-monogamous.

Good to know.

[redqueen]

132. No... see post 17.

I'm only attacking the non-monogamous who use junk science to claim monogamy is somehow an impossible expectation.

[walldude]

121. It works for me...

Love my wife, don't want another and am quite happy with the sex. Not much to complain about in the monogamy dept.

[EndersDame]

123. I like monogamy because it is uncomplicated

Emotions and sex just between two people is complicated enough. This way I do not have to worry about disease My partner knocking up another girl (i am very paranoid about stds like a condom ripping or some fluid getting into a cut). We are friends with a married couple in their early 40s who have an open relationship and it just doesnt seem to work when I am with the husband or the wife alone their is always some report of jealousy or suspicion its just crazy!

[GliderGuider]

128. To each their own, but honesty is always the best policy

Some individuals are more monogamous than others, but lying about it "for the sake of the kids/reputation/spouse's feelings/whatever" is a lousy choice. If you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, you have to talk about it.

My parents have had a monogamous marriage (so far as I've been able to tell) for 63 years. I've had three marriages - one open dyad, one closed dyad with an affair, and one triad - and I can say that the worst situation on all levels was the one with the affair. I don't care what sort of arrangements people make for themselves and I don't think that monogamy is intrinsically "better" than other arrangements, but I know for sure that dishonesty sucks, and not in a good way.