Wiring

[SchrodingersCat]

Do you believe the tendency to be polyamorous or monogamous wired or conditioned? I don't presume that we're going to solve the scientific debate here, but I'm curious to learn what other people think.

The other thread about mono/poly wiring got me thinking about this, but that thread didn't really address the question.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to use the "nature/nurture" definition of "wired" ... i.e. that it refers to a person's nature as opposed to the "wiring" that results from synapses forming as a reaction to stimulus.

I personally believe that being monogamous or being polyamorous is fundamentally wired.

I do believe that a lot of people who are naturally poly are conditioned into believing that they must live monogamously.

One thing that strikes me is the double standard indicated by Mono's comment, and I wonder how many other people have encountered this pattern:
I find it interesting that a mono person can accept the concept of poly wiring so easily but that so many poly people I know cannot accept mono wiring.

I offer the premise that one tendency is wired if and only if the other is also wired (i.e. you couldn't say "poly is wired but mono is conditioned").

If we're going to say that neither is wired, then it raises the question, how did we all get to be poly when we were all conditioned in the same monogamous western culture?

[Ceoli]

I do think that many people are monogamous because it's the social default. They simply haven't considered that there are other options and haven't made a conscious choice or examination of whether they are monogamous or polyamorous by nature. That is not the same as saying that everyone who is monogamous is socially conditioned to be so. Just that our social conditioning often doesn't even allow us to see whether we actually have those monogamous inclinations or not. It hasn't been a conscious choice for them.

As for the wiring issue, and as it is for most issues of wiring in any aspect of life, I believe it to be an as of yet unknown combination of nature and nurture.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

I do think that many people are monogamous because it's the social default. They simply haven't considered that there are other options and haven't made a conscious choice or examination of whether they are monogamous or polyamorous by nature. That is not the same as saying that everyone who is monogamous is socially conditioned to be so. Just that our social conditioning often doesn't even allow us to see whether we actually have those monogamous inclinations or not. It hasn't been a conscious choice for them.

As for the wiring issue, and as it is for most issues of wiring in any aspect of life, I believe it to be an as of yet unknown combination of nature and nurture.
Ceoli, who authorized you to read my thoughts and post them? ;)

[GroundedSpirit]

Do you believe the tendency to be polyamorous or monogamous wired or conditioned?

Hi Cat,

Yea - this seems to be a somewhat debated topic and except for pure research value I guess I'm somewhat indifferent.

But personally, I come down on the side of 'conditioned' - and here's why.

If we want to talk about 'love', from a 'wiring' perspective, we have more than ample evidence that it is in our nature to love many living things simultaneously. There's no question about that. We all do it every day (hopefully).

The problem only seems to come in when someone tries to sub classify 'love' into it's different expressions. In particular, 'romantic' love (whatever THAT is ?) And all sub classifications are a product of 'mind'. And 'mind' is very much influenced - indeed constructed - by knowledge level and culture. The more we learn, the more our 'mind' changes & grows. Now the depth of that 'conditioning' and how/what is required for it to evolve over time is a much studied and debated topic in psychology etc. We don't seem to have those answers.

But it seems clear that at a biological level we are 'wired' for unlimited love. But our expression (and even acceptance) of that seems limited to our particular belief system (a product of mind).

So that's where I sit. I've seemingly made a conscious choice of accepting the biological imperative simply because I believe it's a better way to live.

But that's just me.

GS

[Confused]

I really don't know. Honestly I would have said I was completely monogamously wired until lately because it never occurred to me to think of anything else. In 11 years I haven't felt stifled in my relationship, I know I could like my life happily on a desert island with my husband and we would be fine. So how did I end up with feelings for someone else, while still utterly adoring my husband? I really don't know. I wonder if they will be transitory, sometimes I think they are sinking back to more like friendship levels already.

[MonoVCPHG]

Wired and genetically dispositioned to only intimately/romantically/sexually love one person therefore monogamous in nature.

Socially conditioned to view marriage and monogamous relationship behavior as the social norm.

Overall combination of nature and conditioning.
Nature governs my internal workings, conditioning influences my external views and actions.

[Ceoli]

Wired and genetically dispositioned to only intimately/romantically/sexually love one person therefore monogamous in nature.

While there is research to suggest that certain expressed genes contribute to a person producing more vasopressin, which is a hormone that promotes pair bonding, that's as far as the research goes.

Is there a gene test for monogamy?

[classycaveman]

Wired and genetically dispositioned to only intimately/romantically/sexually love one person therefore monogamous in nature.

Mono, you're an enigma to me. I can't imagine myself being as intimately/romantically/sexually committed to one woman as you seem to be to Redpepper, no matter how amazing she was. I respect it though, and happily give you the benefit of the doubt... But humor me: If you were stranded on a desert island with all of Maxim's Top 100, and you knew you would eventually be reunited with Redpepper but didn't know whether it would be days, months, or years, how long would you hold out? How would you respond in that situation? Just trying to understand your wiring

I offer the premise that one tendency is wired if and only if the other is also wired (i.e. you couldn't say "poly is wired but mono is conditioned").

Ok, as long as you're not rejecting that outright as a hypothesis. Things can absolutely be wired one way but conditioned another.

[redpepper]

Mono investigated his mononess at length in past threads. Perhaps you will find some of what he has already answered, if anyone would like to do a search. I don't have the time to go through it all, but just to let you know....there is also links to studies that might be interesting too. All good questions, as long as people are being careful not to judge and come from a place of wonder and respect for those they don't understand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm9Bwpxy4V0

here is a link to what Dan Savage says about swinging, but he talks about monogamy too... he isn't a big fan of poly it seems from other videos we watched.

I think that some people just don't invest that much in the whole thing.. they really just want to live their lies quietly with someone who they can love and who loves them. For some people that is the best they can do and they are comfortable with that... Why rock the boat they might say.

[classycaveman]

...as long as people are being careful not to judge and come from a place of wonder and respect for those they don't understand...

Absolutely. I'll take a look through the archives.

Oh, and on the topic of wiring, I'd tend to side with GS. I think monogamy is a choice... but I'm curious to see what Mono has to say about it.

[MonoVCPHG]

While there is research to suggest that certain expressed genes contribute to a person producing more vasopressin, which is a hormone that promotes pair bonding, that's as far as the research goes.

Is there a gene test for monogamy?

please see the Nature Nurture thread for links to the genetic research as the researchgoes much farther than that . I can't be bothered to rehash this whole debate. besides this thread was asking what we thought about wiring, not specifically how I see it.

[Ceoli]

please see the Nature Nurture thread for links to the genetic research as the researchgoes much farther than that.

Actually, I've been through the research and talked about those findings with with a geneticist. The research doesn't go much further than establishing the expression of the vasopressin gene and pair-bonding. There has been no direct causal evidence and to my knowledge there hasn't been a "monogamy" gene found in the human genome.

What the research has established is that there is a possible genetic predisposition towards strong pair bonding.

I can't be bothered to rehash this whole debate. besides this thread was asking what we thought about wiring, not specifically how I see it.

Since you brought up genetics on this thread, that's what's being discussed.

[MonoVCPHG]

Mono, you're an enigma to me. I can't imagine myself being as intimately/romantically/sexually committed to one woman as you seem to be to Redpepper, no matter how amazing she was. I respect it though, and happily give you the benefit of the doubt... But humor me: If you were stranded on a desert island with all of Maxim's Top 100, and you knew you would eventually be reunited with Redpepper but didn't know whether it would be days, months, or years, how long would you hold out? How would you respond in that situation? Just trying to understand your wiring



Ok, as long as you're not rejecting that outright as a hypothesis. Things can absolutely be wired one way but conditioned another.

Please don' assosiate your weakness with me LOL!

[MonoVCPHG]

Since you brought up genetics on this thread, that's what's being discussed.

Of course it is. You are an interesting woman. Topic belongs to you :)

[Ceoli]

Of course it is. You are an interesting woman. Topic belongs to you :)

The topic doesn't "belong" to anyone, which was kind of my point. That's the beauty of a discussion.

If we're going to say that neither is wired, then it raises the question, how did we all get to be poly when we were all conditioned in the same monogamous western culture?

This question got me thinking. I do believe that the culture we live in *does* play a role in providing polyamory as an option for how to be in relationships. While monogamy may still be considered a default, default conditions hold far less influence in our culture than in others. I've often noticed that the vast majority of poly communities are comprised of white, middle to upper middle class people. That's because the "cultural price" of being polyamorous is comparatively low as compared with other cultures. I'll note here that there are some cultures in Africa, South America and Asia that practice polygamy and polyandry.

You can compare this to how other cultures accept GBLT identified people. Among our culture (and by culture I'm referring to a broad swathe of middle to upper middle class US, Canada and Europe) while there is still much to be done, you won't be subject to the death penalty for being gay. This is still the case in many parts of the world.

So it seems to me that in the US, Canada and Europe, being middle to upper middle class actually provides far less monogamous boundaries than you would find in most other cultures and economic classes within our own culture. So I think our culture has actually played a role in people choosing to live in polyamorous relationships.

You can also see how the internet has been recreating norms in many aspects of life. Now that the internet has allowed poly people to be more aware of each other and for others to be more aware of polyamory, more people are choosing it because it isn't falling so far outside of "normal" as it may have felt in the past.

[Breathesgirl]

For me polyamory is a CHOICE, plain and simple.

It helps reduce my stress levels, in some instances, because I'm not trying to be someone's everything

Yes, monogamy is the social default BUT if more people were taught that it really is ok to love more than one person (yeah, I know, more of a Utopia than I can imagine) poly might become more mainstream and not a 'flavor of the month'.

For example: I am trying to teach my sons that more than one relationship can be a good thing. One son has many friends who are girls but only one girlfriend at any give time. The other isn't interested in any relationship which is more than simple friends right now. Both are perfectly fine for relationships but there is SO much more available to them. They will eventually find what they need in their lives when the time is right and they have matured to the level where they will be able to find it. My kids are 14 btw so they are in the experimental stages of relationships any way.

I think that poly AND monogamy can be a choice. Neither is really hardwired into us. Monogamy is the default choice because of societal standards but if those standards were to change then who's to say that polyamory won't become the default?

It took activists a very long time to get women the vote, to allow same gender marriages and it will take a long time for activists to get the politicians to see that plural marriage and multiple relationships is a viable option.

Robin

[GroundedSpirit]

Do you believe the tendency to be polyamorous or monogamous wired or conditioned? I don't presume that we're going to solve the scientific debate here, but I'm curious to learn what other people think.

Well now,

The progression of this thread has given me some personal insight.
I'm starting to feel a bit like I may be "odd man out".

When debates like this come up I may be at somewhat of a loss to participate because I think my understanding of love may be quite different than many/most ?

Background: Some many moons ago, when I decided to take on the task of understanding love & how it flows in the world and for myself, I came to a point that I was forced to drop any distinction between various 'types' (?) of love and find a universal base. And what I believe that the vast majority of people understand (and discuss) about these different 'types' of love (particularly romantic love) to me became no more than different 'expressions' of a root concept.

To help clarify..........
I 'love" !
How I EXPRESS that love is different for a person who is a friend, a person I have some romantic/sexual connection with, my cat, my neighbor, a total stranger. The ROOT is the same and subject to most of the same considerations. My 'expression' (action) will vary to fit the proper context.

So having this view I think handicaps me in some ways in trying to relate to how everyone else can have a discussion about a particular TYPE (what I see as only an expression) of love as if it were an entity all it's own.

So a debate such as wired vs conditioned takes on a whole new context if we're treating it (romantic love?) as it's own entity.

If viewing it from that perspective I guess I'd have to suspect that there is sufficient evolutionary potential for the 'wiring' one way or the other to be impacted from thousands of previous generations experience of success/failure/safety in the mating/procreation game.

But over those eons of course, the concept of 'love' was little known or discussed/analyzed.

So depending on which view - or definition - a person holds, a solid case could be built in either direction.

GS

[SchrodingersCat]

There has been no direct causal evidence and to my knowledge there hasn't been a "monogamy" gene found in the human genome.

Maybe they haven't looked long enough, and might not know it when they see it.

There isn't even one specific gene for eye colour, it's a combination of genes, and eye colour is a straight-forward genetic thing that they knew they could find. So the lack of "a specific monogamy gene" would not disprove that monogamy is genetic. Our species is in its infancy of understanding genetics. We can say "we found a gene or set of genes for X, therefore X is genetic." But saying "we have not found a gene or set of genes for Y" only means that "we have not proven that Y is genetic," and not "we have proven that Y is not genetic." By analogy, you can look at 100,000 cats, find that those 100,000 cats are white, and still never prove that "no cats are black." That's just how science works.

The animal kingdom may provide some insight. Some species mate for life, others select multiple mates during a single breeding season. Within the primates, there is a direct correlation between testicle size and the average number of mates taken by females of that species. Humans have "medium" sized testicles, which means we're not uniformly all one way or the other.

[MonoVCPHG]

This isn't my information nor is it based on conversations I have had with people. It is information generated by real accredited identified geneticists and I am putting it out there for people to read and make their own determination of it's validity in the spirit of good faith and knowledge.

RS3 334 is a gene....that gene is linked to pair bonding. That pair bonding predisposition influences how men engage in relationships such as monogamy.

I posted a link the complete study on another thread.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5702390&page=1


Hasse Walum at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues looked at the various forms of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in 552 Swedish people, who were all in heterosexual partnerships. The researchers also investigated the quality of their relationships.

They found that variation in a section of the gene called RS3 334 was linked to how men bond with their partners. Men can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section, and the higher the number of copies, the worse men scored on a measure of pair bonding.

Not only that, men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis.

Commitment phobia
Given that everyone surveyed had been in their relationship for at least five years, the team suggests that having multiple copies somehow contributes to commitment problems in men. Because the results were collected for a different study the team couldn't quiz the men on whether they were faithful, says Wallum.

It is not clear exactly how multiple copies of RS3 334 affect expression of the vasopressin receptor, and our most intimate relationships. And yet that's the most interesting question, says Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

In some animals, the theory is that the brain has two "motivational" systems: one for reward, the other for social perception. In prairie voles and marmosets, receptors for the two systems sit on adjacent cells, so social activity is highly rewarding, leading to monogamy. To see if the same mechanism is at work in people will mean using tissue from post-mortems to map where vasopressin receptors lie, to see if variations are linked to the number of copies of RS3 334.


I thought I should edit this to clarify that the purpose of posting this information is not to point out why people (men specifically) are polyamorous but to emphasise the possibility that some are wired for monogamy.
There are plenty of reasons for people to be any number of things.


For a different take, here is a link which questions the validity of the study.
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/monogamy-gene.html

For any Dan Savage fans, he has some good stuff on the benefits of "non monogamy and swinging"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm9Bwpxy4V0

Dan Savage also has some less than hopefull stuff on "polyamory"....let's hope he is wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_hZBLlTtE


All good stuff!

[Ceoli]

Maybe they haven't looked long enough, and might not know it when they see it.

There isn't even one specific gene for eye colour, it's a combination of genes, and eye colour is a straight-forward genetic thing that they knew they could find. So the lack of "a specific monogamy gene" would not disprove that monogamy is genetic.

I wasn't suggesting that the fact that we haven't found a monogamy gene disproves it's possible existence or the possibility of a genetic predisposition towards monogamy.

However, like you say, the factors that would contribute to such things are vast and complex. So it is rather premature to make an assertion one way or the other. Geneticists are also challenged by the fact that the way family units are formed in societies and in groups of animals is greatly influenced by the environment, sociological factors and cultural factors as is how the brain ends up being wired in adulthood. It is often difficult to separate out these factors beyond correlation because of that.

Our species is in its infancy of understanding genetics. We can say "we found a gene or set of genes for X, therefore X is genetic." But saying "we have not found a gene or set of genes for Y" only means that "we have not proven that Y is genetic," and not "we have proven that Y is not genetic." By analogy, you can look at 100,000 cats, find that those 100,000 cats are white, and still never prove that "no cats are black." That's just how science works.


Yep, I'm pretty familiar with how science works, I used to work among many scientists at MIT and had and still have many interesting conversations about it :).

Genetics is particularly interesting in that sense. Two beings can be genetically identical yet express (i.e. activate) their genes in varied ways to end up developing completely separate characteristics despite being genetically identical. However, it gets even trickier when you start using genetics to track predispositions. It's one thing to categorize and track physical characteristics, it's an entirely other thing to categorize and track behaviors, because, like I said, behaviors and tendencies towards certain behaviors have multiple causal factors- physical environment, sociological development and culture. We have only just begun to be able to link behaviors to very specific physical characteristics such as hormones and such (such as finding a relationship between particular gene expressions and the "pair bonding" hormone vasopressin). But even then researchers have had more success identifying correlation rather than causality because it is pretty clear that genetics works in concert with many other causal factors to create an outcome.


The animal kingdom may provide some insight. Some species mate for life, others select multiple mates during a single breeding season. Within the primates, there is a direct correlation between testicle size and the average number of mates taken by females of that species. Humans have "medium" sized testicles, which means we're not uniformly all one way or the other.

Yep, it's fascinating research indeed.

I'm not saying that being monogamously inclined can't be genetic. However, it is a far leap to say that individual humans are genetically programmed either for monogamy or polyamory. It indeed could be a possibility, we've certainly learned a lot about the relationships between mating, pair-bonding, and genetics. However, we are FAR from truly being able to claim that one or the other is the case.

[GroundedSpirit]

Oh - and Mon - thanks for those links. Informative reading !

At times like this I often step back and ask - 'why are we even discussing/debating such things'? (on any variety of topics) Sometimes - and this is one of those times - I feel it's beneficial to just get a deeper understanding of why some things are the way they are. It may or may not ever 'change' anything - nor is that the purpose of discussion.

So in light of how a topic like this comes up in a subject oriented around a way of living (polyamory), while acknowledging the role of biology, I think it's also important to acknowledge our advances in understanding the role of mind in actually altering that biology. Not to get into some deep scientific discussion well beyond our purposes. I'll only mention a common example that probably most (via counseling) are familiar with or exposed to. Commonly referred to as CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), the basic premise being that we do have the ability to self modify our genetics/biology. Nuff said there.......

So where this plays in is in our decision making process. It offers 'choice'. In our quest for whatever we believe is a more harmonious, fulfilling and maybe loving life, by thinking and learning about options we bring choices to the table.

What this means is that any crutches we have are suddenly whipped out from under us. We can no longer just fall back on biology (wiring) as written in stone. We have to give it a proper category. CHOICE.

We're no longer bound by forces outside our control.
We are making a conscious choice (even if it's only out of an unwillingness to put in what may be a tremendous amount of time and effort) to allow our biology to reign supreme.
By itself - neither good nor bad. Simply a choice. The individual circumstances and long term possible outcomes will stand judge on whether is was the 'right' choice or not.

But it's said there is no such thing as a 'bad' choice at the time it's made. Everyone is choosing what they believe is best. Only time will be the judge.

GS

[MonoVCPHG]

'why are we even discussing/debating such things'?
GS

:D:D I think this is the comment that will end my role in this debate, GS. This is the perfect close for me. Knowing who I am and how I work is all I need. I'll leave the debate to others. Glad you liked the links my friend.

[Ceoli]

At times like this I often step back and ask - 'why are we even discussing/debating such things'? (on any variety of topics) Sometimes - and this is one of those times - I feel it's beneficial to just get a deeper understanding of why some things are the way they are. It may or may not ever 'change' anything - nor is that the purpose of discussion.

The first thing I would say to that is, "Why not?"

Oftentimes, people use such ideas of wiring and biology an important factor to legitimize or de-legitimize behavior, especially in the eyes of the law and what is acceptable to the public. It makes sense that if arguments such as "NATURE intended marriage to be between a MAN and a WOMAN" etc. are being plastered around all of these policy decisions and views in society (at least as they are here in the US), then getting into the nitty gritty of the biology can be beneficial to facilitating a society to accept more progressive ideals structures of families.

It may be enough for the individual to know what's right for them, but when society starts making decisions about what's right and normal, I find it important to have these conversations, if only to make space for *more* people to be able to live in ways that are right for them.

[GroundedSpirit]

The first thing I would say to that is, "Why not?"


Oh I totally agree Ceoli !
I think you (and Mon both) may have misinterpreted what I meant.
It was a legitimate "why" and my reasoning was much like yours. Good information for ALL. and if kept in that context it's not even what you'd classify as 'debate', just good insightful discussion. Too bad it didn't have a broader audience.

GS

[Ceoli]

it's not even what you'd classify as 'debate', just good insightful discussion.

Well, that's how I've been looking at it.

[redpepper]

Hate to play devils advocate here, but I have been lead to believe that some poly identified people are responsible daters waiting for "the one." There is nothing wrong with that to me and if that is their poly, then awesome for them, if it makes them feel good, but it's kind of like not knowing what it is like to have a baby until you have one or not knowing what married life is like until you are married... no one can explain it until it's upon you and you feel it yourself.... sometimes it can be so powerful it can lead to monogamy (oh shock and horror!!! :eek:)

I also think that some are perhaps responsible daters that have had a life of relationship drama because they have invested more than they perhaps should of in a person and now want to just let lose with a bunch of experimental dating people.

when I say "responsible" I mean that they have everything out in the open, are honest to everyone concerned, include their metamours in their lives in order to be sure everyone is doing okay... all good stuff for sure. I certainly never did those things and would of found it very liberating when I was a "dater."

I have a friend who dates about five different women. His cell phone buzzes constantly. He is not poly, he dates. Some of these women know that he dates others, some don't. Some of them have husbands and boyfriends that don't know they are dating others. It all seems to be similar to some peoples poly, but he considers himself monogamous. There are no metamours, no primaries, secondaries, unicorns..... it all seems rather liberating sometimes to tell you the truth... even though I know, having been there, that honesty, openness and communication work far better for me.

Perhaps the difference is something to do with a need for a higher level of openness, honesty and communication? Rather than an ability to love more than one? That has always sounded a tad pompous and arrogant some how to me. What makes us think that we have love cornered anyway?