Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-15-2018, 01:13 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 6,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyNatural View Post
Several thousand years appears to be an overestimation of the prevalence of monogamy. From the digging I've done on the subject it was primarily ancient Roman decrees from a couple of hundred years B.C. that got it started and then Roman Christianity spread it northward into Europe and from there across the ocean. It was largely to preserve paternal order and increase the civilian population, at least in part to produce more sword and shield bearing foot soldiers. It was also not very fair to women who according to one paper on the subject could be put to death for adultery. From there women continued to be owned by men for the primary purpose of child bearing. IMO the whole wretched institution should have been scrapped.

Instead it was glamorized and Disneyfied in order to fulfill much of the same purpose in North America; settlement and reproduction. Historically most cultures have been non-monogamous and Rome was the exception even at the time. However it also had a powerful influence on Western culture. So there's a historical tidbit. But it in no way diminishes your point, which I completely agree with. It's yet another fine post![/FONT][/SIZE]
I should have said, many cultures allowed polygyny under the patriarchy. Some still do. It's polyandry, or polygamy/polyamory across the board, that was outlawed under the patriarchy. Modern polyamory is the result of feminism and the loss of grip Christianity is undergoing currently. And about time.

Of course the first book of Genesis (probably written down 700 BCE) says Eve should only desire her husband and he should rule over her (her curse). Says nothing about Adam only desiring Eve.
__________________
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

Mags (poly, F, 63), dating... again!
Pixi (poly, F, 41) my darling nesting partner since January 2009
Master, (mono, M, 37), Pixi's Dom/bf since April 2013
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:54 PM
PolyNatural's Avatar
PolyNatural PolyNatural is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
I should have said, many cultures allowed polygyny under the patriarchy. Some still do. It's polyandry, or polygamy/polyamory across the board, that was outlawed under the patriarchy. Modern polyamory is the result of feminism and the loss of grip Christianity is undergoing currently. And about time.
Your point was well made regardless of the details. But it's advantageous at times to know the details too. It's all rather murky, but from what I've seen so far, those who cling to the idea that monogamy is our "natural" state ( hardwired in so to speak ), have consistently had a background in or closely associated with one of the chief institutions responsible for it ( church or state ) and mostly some Abrahamic ( Christian ) church. The one exception I ran across was an atheist historian, but on listening to him, it became readily apparent that one doesn't need either religious or political reasons to possess a mono bias. Socialization affects everyone, and he was simply in a state of denial.
Quote:
Of course the first book of Genesis (probably written down 700 BCE) says Eve should only desire her husband and he should rule over her (her curse). Says nothing about Adam only desiring Eve.
Yes, Another totally gender biased hypocritical double-standard on the part of those behind all that doctrine. Notice I didn't say "on the part of men" because I don't think it's inherently gender based. We can thank Morning Glory for her progressive individualism as well as her life partner Oberon who was in complete agreement with her for establishing the ground rules for what we call polyamory today. There's still the myth out there that it was created by men to give them an excuse for cheating ( eye-roll ).
__________________

"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." - Hemingway | Introduction To Polyamory
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-15-2018, 07:32 PM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
polyamory [is] still a rare relationship style in our culture and has been for several thousand years, in Western culture at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyNatural View Post
Several thousand years appears to be an overestimation of the prevalence of monogamy.
Nope, I didn't get THAT at all.

Magdlyn stated that polyamory is rare. IME, this is true, even if it's "polyamory" thar encompasses most forms of nonmonogamy.

The "sacred dyad" archetype has certainly been around for thousands of years, & worldwide at that, probably since the time that protohumans developed enough awareness to grasp the cause-&-effect sequence of sexual reproduction. Denying this would be like denying electricity is valid because it offers only positive & negative current.

However, the "sacred dyad" stuff was generally an expression of religious mythology. Naturally, royalty (being "appointed From Above" & such nonsense) wentthrough the motions if only to keep up appearances. All that pops to mind this second is Wicca (Cernunnos & Aradia) & Shinto (Izanagi-no-Mikoto & Izanami-no-Mikoto, & maybe Amaterasu & Tsukiyomi as well), but anyone can find more.

Even the profane dyad has the advantage of being the second-smallest societal building block past individuality. The fact is that there's plenty of squarely nonmonogamous people who hold to a dyad, maybe present often as a couple, & might even be legally married.

By "the prevalence of monogamy," I'm guessing you're actually referring to general Monogamism, where the "sacred dyad" is fully enshrined with all the foofaraw about "forever" & "none others" & all that claptrap.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:12 AM.