Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-06-2011, 10:53 AM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by friday View Post
The schema and the myth and the reason most people think that monogamy is "correct" is because it is dominant, and it is dominant for a reason. Millions of years of evolutionary biology made humans a 'mostly monogamous' species...
Actually this is not true. Monogamy is a late development, which only came along when agriculture developed. If humans had developed into a naturally monogamous species, no one would ever cheat (and half of all people do), no one would ever get divorced, and there would be only monogamous cultures out there. Try reading Sex at Dawn for more information on this.

If monogamy were natural, we wouldnt need social structures, rewards and punishments (legal or religious) to keep people from straying.

Quote:
...as humans we are lucky to be able to take advantage of trying out other systems that might just elevate us even further as a species.

People believe in monogamy as a cultural tool because its been handed down to us over many many generations of both thought and physical. Its only recently that humans have had the time and resources to farm less and think about things like romance more, and for the last few thousand years its been monotheism which has dominated most of the world, who wanted to reinforce the system that bred the most people to push the darkness of the wild back, and for good reason.
Interesting. Do monotheism and monogamy go hand in hand? No, not even then. Many Muslims and some Jews still practice non-monogamy, ie, polygamy. Current day hunter gatherers (who spend less time getting food than more "advanced" societies) practice non-monogamy.

I am not sure what you mean by darkness of the wild being controlled by monogamy and monotheism. Monogamy developed so that men could control women's fertility and assure the children the women bore were the men's genetic offspring, for economic reasons. Nowdays, people are marrying less. That has been a late 20th and 21st century development. Even people who do marry have a 50% chance of splitting up, and finding new partners is the next step. So, serial monogamy, dating, kids being raised by the woman's extended family, given money by the state when necessary, all these things have to happen because monogamy is not natural and does not work. We wouldnt need porn, strippers, and prostitutes if we were naturally mono. No one would ever cheat on their spouses.

We wouldnt have the very common phenomenon of people being in love with 2 people at once and feeling like they need to choose between them, and suffering because of it.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-06-2011, 11:21 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
. . . being in love with 2 people at once and feeling like they need to choose between them, and suffering because of it.
Torn between two lovers,
feeling like a fooooooool
Loving you both is
breaking all the rules....
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-06-2011, 05:10 PM
Carma's Avatar
Carma Carma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
I said that I'd mention people who have examined their own lives and still choose monogamous arrangements, or even define themselves as monogamous people. A frequent message on this site is that love is an infinite resource, but things like time and energy are not. While someone may be ABLE to love more than one person at once, they may only WANT to feel that with one person at a time. Obviously we're not including anyone who only gets into monogamous relationships because that's what they've been taught (although we shouldn't entirely discount the social learning that happens for years, reinforced all around our society - movies, books, tv shows etc) but people who have realised and understand that they WANT and CHOOSE monogamous relationships for themselves. I guess the best way to explain this is to say that while I think that all humans are ABLE to love more than one person, they are not REQUIRED to love more than one person, or even anyone at all.

I believe the difference between monogamy and non-monogamy as relationship systems can be compared to the people who naturally prefer to have a small group of close friends to a larger group of less close friends. While someone who prefers a small group of close friends would certainly be ABLE to add a new friend into the mix, they might not WANT to. Similarly for monogamous arrangements, someone might be ABLE to love a second person, but they don't WANT to. They understand themselves well enough to know that they prefer to invest their limited time and energy into one relationship with one person.

At this point, I'd like to bring up poly-fidelitous arrangements, a sort of half-way house between monogamy and complete non-monogamy - a group of people who only have sex and romantic connection to other people within the group. To me, this actually reinforces the idea that monogamy (as a system) is a chosen system - while it's clear that these people can love more than one person (since the group is more than two) at the same time they're promising EXCLUSIVITY to each other because they, like those who choose monogamous relationships, prefer to invest their limited time and energy into those people within the group.

For all other non-monogamous arrangements, the people prefer to invest their time and energy with multiple people - I don't have to say a whole lot on this, since anyone on this site either knows, or is learning about it

I believe that each system is a totally valid way of living your life and managing your relationships, as long as you know that it's right for YOU. Any type of relationship borne out of fear and insecurity is a recipe for disaster.
Thank you, Z, for your insight, it really helped me think some things through in my own situation right now.

One concept I'm struggling with is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Personally, that perspective is failing us right now. "If you love someone else, then it's ok for me to go look for someone else, too..." For some reason, we seemed to think that just because one of our hearts (mine) opened for someone new (and as a lovely consequence, my husband's heart opened for him, too), my husband needed to find someone new, too. Is this a Noah's Ark thing??! Everybody must be in pairs??

(Speaking of Bible stories/religion, Wow, Mag -- you refer to "YHWH" -- you must be very current on things. Isn't this something new? And Catholic?)

After reading Z's post, I'm realizing that maybe it's ok to say, "I am most comfortable living in a MFM V relationship. Forcing it into an N is not going so well, and it's ok to admit that just because I could be ok with it eventually, I may not WANT to. I lost sight lately of the freedom gained from living an honest, authentic, life, one of the things I've really embraced in poly. Am I a hypocrite for saying, "It's ok for me to love two, but YOU have to love only ME" -- ? What about, "I am not comfortable with you having casual sex with others, even if I am having sex with two men, because I am committed to our V and I would like you to be, too" -- ? Which brings me back to a more general discussion (and I apologize for getting off on a personal tangent)...

Polyamory is about loving more than one, not just having sex with more than one. Right? I guess I'm confused sometimes in that regard. The book Sex at Dawn is about SEX, not necessarily love. And as far as the reproductive systems are concerned -- what about when you're past fertility? Isn't it clear to see that those things are rather moot after a certain age? With people living longer these days, it seems logical that we are examining relationships differently. Between that and the availability of birth control, it's not all about the babies we are potentially creating anymore.

I just realized that the terms aren't congruent! Mono-gamy is not the same as mono-amory, is it?? Ah, there lies my confusion, possibly...
__________________
Formerly married to Sundance
Boyfriend -- Butch Cassidy
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-07-2011, 09:53 AM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carma View Post

...(Speaking of Bible stories/religion, Wow, Mag -- you refer to "YHWH" -- you must be very current on things. Isn't this something new? And Catholic?)
No, actually, it's very old, and Jewish. YHWH is the Jewish god's name. Usually pronounced Yahweh. Over the years, it became understood The Name was too sacred to write, so it was traditional to replace the word Yahweh with the term The Lord. Every time you read "The Lord" in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, it stands in for the name Yahweh. (PM me if you want to discuss this, I don't want to get too off topic.)

Quote:
After reading Z's post, I'm realizing that maybe it's ok to say, "I am most comfortable living in a MFM V relationship. Forcing it into an N is not going so well, and it's ok to admit that just because I could be ok with it eventually, I may not WANT to. I lost sight lately of the freedom gained from living an honest, authentic, life, one of the things I've really embraced in poly. Am I a hypocrite for saying, "It's ok for me to love two, but YOU have to love only ME" -- ?
Yes.

Quote:
What about, "I am not comfortable with you having casual sex with others, even if I am having sex with two men, because I am committed to our V and I would like you to be, too" -- ?
Yes. Because of course, love can develop from a casual relationship! Happens every day!

Quote:
Polyamory is about loving more than one, not just having sex with more than one. Right? I guess I'm confused sometimes in that regard. The book Sex at Dawn is about SEX, not necessarily love.
True, but again, where there is sex, there is often love.

Quote:
And as far as the reproductive systems are concerned -- what about when you're past fertility? Isn't it clear to see that those things are rather moot after a certain age? With people living longer these days, it seems logical that we are examining relationships differently. Between that and the availability of birth control, it's not all about the babies we are potentially creating anymore.
Right. And it actually hasn't been all about babies, for humans, in like, forever. Sex is an important pair bonding activity.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-07-2011, 06:28 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carma View Post
For some reason, we seemed to think that just because one of our hearts (mine) opened for someone new (and as a lovely consequence, my husband's heart opened for him, too), my husband needed to find someone new, too.

After reading Z's post, I'm realizing that maybe it's ok to say, "I am most comfortable living in a MFM V relationship. Forcing it into an N is not going so well, and it's ok to admit that just because I could be ok with it eventually, I may not WANT to. I lost sight lately of the freedom gained from living an honest, authentic, life, one of the things I've really embraced in poly. Am I a hypocrite for saying, "It's ok for me to love two, but YOU have to love only ME" -- ? What about, "I am not comfortable with you having casual sex with others, even if I am having sex with two men, because I am committed to our V and I would like you to be, too" -- ? Which brings me back to a more general discussion (and I apologize for getting off on a personal tangent)...

Polyamory is about loving more than one, not just having sex with more than one. Right?
Carma, for lots of people, sex happens before love, in the more casual stages of a relationship. We can't expect everyone else to fall in love instantly and only pursue sex after that happens. In your case, it's the dishonesty that is mucking things up, not the sex, but that's been addressed in other threads of yours.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-07-2011, 07:25 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Monogamous animals don't adhere to belief systems...and they do exist therefore monogamy is natural and clearly predates religion and conditioning in my opinion. That being said, Monogamy is definitely a relationship ideal as well though, just like polyamory is both a nature and a belief system I feel.

Which one do I think is the most productive belief system to base a social structure on in a modern capitalist world? Monogamy…specifically serial monogamy because I don't think monogamy is defined by only bonding with one person over an entire unnaturally long lifespan. Polyamourous people spend more time making connections and managing relationship dynamics than mono ones from my point of view and experience. For the most part the major difference I have observed between my old mono community and my newer poly one is the level of success in a capitalistic world. More possessions, more money, more financial and career stability. Why is that? Stability in the relationship allowing for more focus in other areas. Does this make it better as a relationship structure? Absolutely not. It does however give the impression that society has a way of migrating to the most efficient way of doing things to achieve certain forms of social structures. Big capitalistic modern societies generally migrate to monogamy regardless of whether the people involved are all mono or not. Low tech, more nature orientated societies or communal living populations seem to share more, love more and have a greater appreciation for all life and co-existing with the world around them.

Which structure dominates the world and likely will continue to do so? The one with global power and influence - the one we're currently in.

In order for things to change more than just beliefs have to evolve, humans do. What our desires are and what we value as a global community needs to change or whatever structure that supports them will remain dominant. If that structure continues to dominate than that is either what the bulk of society wants or we are being controlled by some very clever and well positioned people who are imposing their beliefs on every one else.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-08-2011, 12:47 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Monogamous animals don't adhere to belief systems...and they do exist therefore monogamy is natural and clearly predates religion and conditioning in my opinion.
There are very few monogamous animals. They are an anomaly.

Quote:
That being said, Monogamy is definitely a relationship ideal as well though, just like polyamory is both a nature and a belief system I feel.

Which one do I think is the most productive belief system to base a social structure on in a modern capitalist world? Monogamy…
Please explain the French.

Quote:
...specifically serial monogamy because I don't think monogamy is defined by only bonding with one person over an entire unnaturally long lifespan.
Serial monogamy can really impact the wallet.

Quote:
Polyamourous people spend more time making connections and managing relationship dynamics than mono ones from my point of view and experience. For the most part the major difference I have observed between my old mono community and my newer poly one is the level of success in a capitalistic world. More possessions, more money, more financial and career stability. Why is that? Stability in the relationship allowing for more focus in other areas.
Stability? When at least half of all these materialistic capitalists are cheating and lying like a rug?

Quote:
Does this make it better as a relationship structure? Absolutely not. It does however give the impression that society has a way of migrating to the most efficient way of doing things to achieve certain forms of social structures. Big capitalistic modern societies generally migrate to monogamy regardless of whether the people involved are all mono or not.
Please pontificate on feminism and women objecting to being treated like possessions.

Quote:
Low tech, more nature orientated societies or communal living populations seem to share more, love more and have a greater appreciation for all life and co-existing with the world around them.



Quote:
Which structure dominates the world and likely will continue to do so? The one with global power and influence - the one we're currently in.
Please compare and contrast feminist capitalists (and the cougar culture) to wealthy men and their trophy wives.


Quote:
we are being controlled by some very clever and well positioned people who are imposing their beliefs on every one else.
It's called a Bible based culture, which affects the most atheistic members of society as much as the religious. We are applying the laws of an Early Iron Age culture (with a warlike jealous male god) to our feminist, anti-slave owning one.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-08-2011, 07:12 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
There are very few monogamous animals. They are an anomaly.



Please explain the French.



Serial monogamy can really impact the wallet.



Stability? When at least half of all these materialistic capitalists are cheating and lying like a rug?



Please pontificate on feminism and women objecting to being treated like possessions.








Please compare and contrast feminist capitalists (and the cougar culture) to wealthy men and their trophy wives.




It's called a Bible based culture, which affects the most atheistic members of society as much as the religious. We are applying the laws of an Early Iron Age culture (with a warlike jealous male god) to our feminist, anti-slave owning one.
Just passing on my views, opinions and experience. Consider it a stand alone comment.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over

Last edited by MonoVCPHG; 09-08-2011 at 07:30 PM. Reason: passive aggressive tone
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-08-2011, 09:11 PM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 351
Default

How many of you think being poly or mono is an orientation, and how many think it's a philosophy/belief system? Why or why not?

This topic REALLY interests me, and I myself was going to post something very similar to River's original post.

I am struggling with this very question. I have spent years coming to the realization that I am non-monogamous. Now I am trying to figure out whether my non-monogamy is based on my belief system or on my inherent nature.

Maybe the distinction isn't important, but somehow it feels like it is. I am still in the phase where I need to explain this to myself (let alone other people!) and understand more about it.

I'm definitely leaning toward the philosophy/belief system side.

I've been surprised and somewhat puzzled that most poly people seem to accept (or believe) that some people are mono and others are poly, and that it's an orientation (like being gay).

This view doesn't really make sense to me. Someone who believes they are mono could suddenly fall in love with two people, right? I think all humans have the capacity to be polyamorous (although anyone may also choose to be monogamous, of course).

But maybe I'm wrong. There are so many mono/poly relationships out there, and the idea that each person is oriented toward either mono or poly seems to work for them.

But on the other hand, it seems to me that when a mono person and a poly person have a relationship, the issue really is philosophical: the mono person must accept a polyamorous belief system for the relationship to work, even if she/he has no interest more than one partner.

I guess for me personally the question seems to be: do I accept that I'm inherently different from most people (different from monogamous people, that is), or do I spread the word about my belief system?

Maybe it's not an either-or situation. One of the issues I am dealing with is that I have a lot of anger at the mono-centric culture around me--which is something I have to move past.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.

Last edited by redpepper; 09-12-2011 at 06:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-16-2011, 11:43 PM
AuroraWD AuroraWD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12
Default

Dear Bella ~ "My Love Is Special!" (FULLSTOP) Thank you for this those four simple words are so powerful, and such good medicine for me right now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
beliefs, relationship myths

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 PM.