recurring patriarchal problem

Never said science is bunk. It can be helpful in many contexts. But regarding human behavior, it is too often used as a crutch to prop up existing social norms. Very little of human behavior is ‘natural’ in how people tend to use it - as an innate constant that doesn’t change over time or in response to environment.

I don’t agree that humans have instincts in the same way animals do. Our behavior is more explained by socialization and environment than instinct.
 
Never said science is bunk. It can be helpful in many contexts. But regarding human behavior, it is too often used as a crutch to prop up existing social norms. Very little of human behavior is ‘natural’ in how people tend to use it - as an innate constant that doesn’t change over time or in response to environment.

I don’t agree that humans have instincts in the same way animals do. Our behavior is more explained by socialization and environment than instinct.

I DO believe human beings possess instincts (the Id). However, for millennia we've been trying to tame/civilise these base drives so that we may rise above our purely animal instincts, rather than be ruled by our biology.

We use our rational minds, intellect, language skills to achieve this; to impose some form of order to our society (the Ego), and strive to analyse our finer emotions so that we may become self-actualised, compassionate individuals (the SuperEgo).

What should NOT be acceptable in contemporary society - especially among those who are otherwise educated and reasonably self-aware - is using our base urges as an excuse to act out in violent, aggressive ways towards others, including being verbally demeaning or judgemental, or trying to stifle others' right to equality and to live as they are inclined (as long as they're acting with integrity).

Thus, while we might be able to see through the lens of history and determine WHY some men (and, yes, women) may instinctually balk at "allowing" their partner to be openly sexually active with others, this natural aversion (possessiveness, jealousy) shouldn't be used as a justification for inhibiting others' rights; or to demean, abuse or physically prevent a partner from expressing their love and sexuality as they see fit.
 
...an excuse to act out in violent, aggressive ways towards others, including being verbally demeaning or judgemental, or trying to stifle others' right to equality and to live as they are inclined (as long as they're acting with integrity).

... inhibiting others' rights; or to demean, abuse or physically prevent a partner from expressing their love and sexuality as they see fit.
I mostly agree with you, but that is a lot of overreach in the context of this thread.

Let's say that I was in a longterm monogamous relationship. (Yes, the idea hurts my head too, but let's try. ;)) Call her Beka. I'm a guy; I'll admire whatever wiggles past, & maybe this leads to an occasional sexual fantasy, & I assume Beka has similar, but we love each other & the sex remains quite good.

From some magazine article, the topic of nonmonogamy comes up. I feel that I might be okay if she were to have another guy in her life, so long as she continues to love me & come home to me, but Beka says she can't imagine herself being okay if I have sex elsewhere. I'm fine with that, case closed, & we go on happily as before.

To me, it's a leap to say that Beka is somehow controlling or "stifling" me. And it's a HUGE leap to equate this to violence, or even that it's somehow leading to violence.

Back to the beginning. Beka & I are in a monogamous relationship. If one of us wants more than one sex partner, & feels it's not negotiable, then the contract is done -- period.

There's nothing to "fix": we can try to restart the dyad with a new contract OR go back to the way we were (also a new contract) OR separate.

Using the old contract as justification for controlling a partner's needs is wrong -- everyone here seems to agree on that point. But then if it's "violent" to expect one to ignore a desire for multiple sex partners, then I say it's even more "violent" to expect the other partner to ignore a desire to honor the original agreement.

The one who expects upgraded freedom should admit that their newfound "need" has ended the old contract, accept responsibility, & prepare to move along without clinging to the other as some sort of fallback position.
 
I mostly agree with you, but that is a lot of overreach in the context of this thread.

Let's say that I was in a longterm monogamous relationship.
From some magazine article, the topic of nonmonogamy comes up. I feel that I might be okay if she were to have another guy in her life, so long as she continues to love me & come home to me, but Beka says she can't imagine herself being okay if I have sex elsewhere. I'm fine with that, case closed, & we go on happily as before.

To me, it's a leap to say that Beka is somehow controlling or "stifling" me. And it's a HUGE leap to equate this to violence, or even that it's somehow leading to violence.

And I understand what YOU are saying.

Allow me to clarify re: the perceived overreach in my response.

My comment was in direct response to MeeraReed's OP, which addresses the existence of a misogynistic double standard - even among poly males (and in the case of this forum, usually a new-to-poly, male primary partner's) - visceral distaste at the very thought of "his" woman desiring, or actually taking, another male as a lover, despite the fact that HE may be seeking or actively engaging with other females in a like fashion...

...and the man's subsequent inability to get past the fact that another penis has been inside of "his" woman; and the condemnation (voiced or unvoiced) of his female partner as somehow "less than", impure, a whore, "used goods" etc., due to that fact ALONE.

It was noted that this can be a problematic issue for even relatively "enlightened" non-monogamous males, in the event that the female partner decides she desires another MALE lover, rather than (the generally more easily-accepted option) a FEMALE lover.

(And yes, I know I'm playing with stereotypes here, and that females can be "guilty" of similar double standards... which I also addressed somewhere... but I was attempting to respond to the topic at hand.)

The controlling behaviours, extreme jealousy and violence against such women that I spoke of, spring from this double standard - and have literally occurred countless thousands of times throughout world history - are most often the preserve of monogamous or polygamous males, regardless of race, creed or culture, true... though I'm sure you'd find some examples within poly circles too.

It is this hypocritical, misogynistic stance (that holds that woman and her vagina are for the exclusive use of her husband/partner, and become "tainted" should she choose to sleep with another man, even if said husband/partner has other wives, lovers, or mistresses) that was at the heart of MeeraReed's OP - and which has seemingly resulted in a "hangover" effect among SOME males who attempt polyamory with the best of intentions, that causes them to become rage-filled, squeamish wrecks when confronted with the fact that their female partner would like to, or is, fucking another guy.
 
Back
Top