NationStates Jolt Archive

After a drama-filled weekend I'm wondering...

Where does the pressure for monogamy come from?

I was rambling among friends that I thought things would be better if women sort of lived together, supported each other and whatnot and then picked men as and when they wanted, leaving men to sit around watching TV and drinking beer or whatever they wanted to do.

I ask because I see a few relationships where the woman's invested and the guy is pretty much taking it for granted and I wonder why women put up with it.

There's clearly pressure to be in a relationship but where does that pressure come from? Even if it's evolution, it's still created enormous cultural influences from the Prince/Princess of fairy tales, true love, poems and whatnot. Has it become something over and above instinct, a sort of separate expectation that is, well, almost unnatural, constrictive in some ways?

Should we separate lust/love from relationships or, at the very very least, try to move away from this one man/one woman pressure?

My vague conclusion was that the pressure for monogamy comes mostly from men even though women are most affected by it, it just seems to lead to a lot of broken hearts and, worse, people stuck in dead-end relationships.

Based off of the level of sexual dimorphism and size of our testicles relative to our brains, we are likely driven somewhat biologically towards monogamy.

Well, monogamy doesn't come from the arab world.

Based off of the level of sexual dimorphism and size of our testicles relative to our brains, we are likely driven somewhat biologically towards monogamy.

I'm reading a book by Matt Ridley that talks about testicle/brain size in relation to humans, Bonobos, Gorillas and Chimps.

Thing is, it seems to me to have transgressed a natural inclination to become something almost counter-productive in many cases.

I imagine it's as simple as one person thinking of it and the idea catching on, like any other meme.

I hate memes...

Jk they're ok

I'm reading a book by Matt Ridley that talks about testicle/brain size in relation to humans, Bonobos, Gorillas and Chimps.

Thing is, it seems to me to have transgressed a natural inclination to become something almost counter-productive in many cases.
well, throw in the financial/cultural aspect. Serial monogamy and polygamy are both significantly more expensive.

it cant be evolution. from a scientific standpoint it's beter for both genders to have as many partners as possible.

it cant be evolution. from a scientific standpoint it's beter for both genders to have as many partners as possible.

Not necessarily. There's no advantage to having lots of offspring if they don't survive to mate themselves. Humans are rather fragile, we need to stick together if we're going to survive. Creating a society of family units helps us do that.

it cant be evolution. from a scientific standpoint it's beter for both genders to have as many partners as possible.

Nope. Not always. Particularly in a species that has cooperative behaviors.

Not necessarily. There's no advantage to having lots of offspring if they don't survive to mate themselves. Humans are rather fragile, we need to stick together if we're going to survive. Creating a society of family units helps us do that.

Not just Mom and Dad and 2.4 children though, we used to live in groups and I wonder if, back in the day, women were more central. I was reading something about a specific play by one of the Greek playwrights where men take over the dominant aspect of society, something to do with judges, damned if I'll look it up.

I'm being really vague but the essay I was reading put forward that idea that households come from cities and that's when the male became dominant in the family unit.

One could suggest that it's more natural where women live as a group with men in and out as certain protection and foraging but not as the central dominant member of society.

Not necessarily. There's no advantage to having lots of offspring if they don't survive to mate themselves. Humans are rather fragile, we need to stick together if we're going to survive. Creating a society of family units helps us do that.

This, we are social animals; and to form a family unit is more beneficial. The pressure comes from out own instincts in a way, its comforting to have someone who is always there. Me, I like manogomy myself but I am not pressured to remain in a relationship that is not beneficial.

people dont like to share

hence monogamy

and what makes you think that monogamy mostly due to pressure from men?

people dont like to share

hence monogamy

and what makes you think that monogamy mostly due to pressure from men?

I wasn't sure and after my last post I wonder if it comes from women, that where they lived in groups, monogamy meant less infighting and therefore better odds of a successful group.

Yet that would be from a natural viewpoint. Now that we live in towns and cities with nuclear families, I'd say the punishment for not being monogamous comes from men, that doesn't mean the pressure comes from them, it's all just been churning around my head so I don't really have concrete answers, hence I ask NSG.

"Gamy" means marraige, hence monogamy does not neccesarily imply that you only have sex with one person.

I think insecurity leads us towards monogamous relationships.

There's also the practical aspect that if you really, really love someone, you want to spend as much time as possible with that person, and that's hard to do if you're putting in time with other lovers. Unfortunately, other lovers don't generally just let you fuck them and leave them, they demand time too.

I know. It's freaking unreasonable, and annoying.

So monogamy is also enforced by the clingy neediness of your other sexual partners. At some point, they just annoy the fuck out of you and you find it's not really worth it...so you just spend time with the one person that doesn't annoy the fuck out of you.

Oh, I don't think neediness leads you to only one partner...

Oh, I don't think neediness leads you to only one partner...

Emotional neediness.

I have found very few people who are actually, when the chips are down, willing to have NSA sex with others, because they can't handle not having some sort of emotional connection. Some 'chance' at a relationship. For many people, too freaking many men included, sex isn't that good unless you have some bond or possible bond with the person you're fucking.

I didn't want to believe it, btw. And I still hope against hope that I can find a decent fuckbuddy for the next few months...but I'm not holding my breath.

It's for the family structure. It takes a lot to raise a human, and the more they learn in childhood, the better they are at things. Also, it has to do with evolution. Look at it this way, in prehistory, if some tribes lived in sloppy family structures compared to tight knit ones, the former would eventually get wiped out in wars, or adopt the ways of the more successful tribes. That's basically what it boils down to. Some of that is even evident today among different cultures of the world.

Emotional neediness? Bah... *looks down, cries....*

Emotional neediness.

I have found very few people who are actually, when the chips are down, willing to have NSA sex with others, because they can't handle not having some sort of emotional connection. Some 'chance' at a relationship. For many people, too freaking many men included, sex isn't that good unless you have some bond or possible bond with the person you're fucking.

I'm not sure if it's about whether it's good or not, there can be a lot of reasons why a guy might be wary of entering into NSA sex, one is that idea that there's no such thing as NSA sex. I think that in itself is a misconception of many men, failure to realise that sometimes a woman just wants to fuck and couldn't much care less about ever seeing you again.

Repeat NSA sex, I'm not sure that's possible, connections are formed, expectations and compromise, it's edges into relationship.

Kudos to those who can really, and honestly, manage it.

It's for the family structure. It takes a lot to raise a human, and the more they learn in childhood, the better they are at things. Also, it has to do with evolution. Look at it this way, in prehistory, if some tribes lived in sloppy family structures compared to tight knit ones, the former would eventually get wiped out in wars, or adopt the ways of the more successful tribes. That's basically what it boils down to. Some of that is even evident today among different cultures of the world.

Buh?

You're damn right it takes a lot to raise other little humans...but are you honestly suggesting that monogamy and 'nuclear families' is the best way to do that?

History disagrees. Feverently.

It is a hell of a lot easier to raise children in an extended family, even if that extended family is entirely the mother's and not the father's.

Delegating child-rearing to small family units puts enormous strain on said family unit. Spread it out a little more between various partners, adopt a more communal and less proprietary approach...it worked for my people for tens of thousands of years :p

No one gets enough Emotional care...

I'm not sure if it's about whether it's good or not, there can be a lot of reasons why a guy might be wary of entering into NSA sex, one is that idea that there's no such thing as NSA sex. I think that in itself is a misconception of many men, failure to realise that sometimes a woman just wants to fuck and couldn't much care less about ever seeing you again.

Repeat NSA sex, I'm not sure that's possible, connections are formed, expectations and compromise, it's edges into relationship.

Kudos to those who can really, and honestly, manage it.

In my experience, purely anecdotal of course, NSA sex can only exist when people are up front about wanting that from the very beginning. One night stands with a phonecall the next week to go out for dinner doesn't necessarily mean NSA if the parties are hoping it'll lead to more.

It's a weird discussion to have, oddly enough. People seem to want to at least pretend that things have the possibility to evolve, even if that's not what THEY want. They figure the other person needs to believe that.

I've met a number of guys now who started out okay with NSA sex. But then they found they wanted strings, and it was making them sad to keep having a non-relationship involving sex. I respect that, it's fine, I'm glad they figured that out and were honest with me...it's just a little annoying overall, I suppose.

I agree with you that there's probably a point where NSA turns into something more if you continue with that person for an extended period of time...but for me, that 'something more' is generally just friendship, which I don't really think constitutes a romantic relationship. It's hard to be really attracted to someone you can't talk to or acknowledge in any way outside of the bedroom. For me, anyway.

Bah, I'm just bitter. All my fuckbuddies have whined about wanting more, and when I couldn't deliver, packed up. Bastards.

Bah, I'm just bitter. All my fuckbuddies have whined about wanting more, and when I couldn't deliver, packed up. Bastards.

Find an alternative to the profelactic that can prevent diseases/other side effects and I would be an NSA kinda guy. Though I am not nearly kinky/good looking enough for you so I guess your still stuck in your boat.

Try a french tickler.

Buh?

You're damn right it takes a lot to raise other little humans...but are you honestly suggesting that monogamy and 'nuclear families' is the best way to do that?

No one said anything about nuclear families, but technically, the answer to this question is yes and no. Monogamy is the real issue here, or to put it another way, not the opposite, if not strict monogamy. This is how civilizations evolved, the more socially advanced ones thought this way, and they were also more advanced overall and dominated the others in one way or another. Also, trying to use as proof of success historical trends, or assumed ones with the scope and context of today's society is not that relevant. What's relevant is that today's society had those monogamous roots, hence why monogamy is here today in one form or another.

That's assuming a "nuclear family" really is not the best way. I do believe that presently it is when it's done right. People often choose to not believe that out of convenience or delusion, but there is no hard facts behind the claim that non-traditional families are better or even OK for child rearing compared to nuclear family. It's up in the air, and isolated anecdotes, as always, do not prove anything about the trend.

History disagrees. Feverently.

How so?

It is a hell of a lot easier to raise children in an extended family, even if that extended family is entirely the mother's and not the father's.

Key word being easier, not better.

Delegating child-rearing to small family units puts enormous strain on said family unit. Spread it out a little more between various partners, adopt a more communal and less proprietary approach...it worked for my people for tens of thousands of years :p

"it worked" doesn't deny the fact that it's not "best" if all it means is survival. I don't believe it is, particularly when it comes to competing in the modern world. Either way, the wider truth is that people generally do better when they have proper male and female parental figures, which statistically among a large population is not going to be anyone but their natural parents very often. Like I said, isolated anecdotes do not affect the overall reality in society.

For me, personally, I think life would be improved not by doing away with monogamy, but by doing away with the idea of "happily ever after forever and ever." I think the idea that anyone is going to find a partner and spend the rest of his/her life with that person is less realistic than the idea of having one partner at a time.

I assumed monogamous relationships arose because females desired male help in raising offspring, and males wanted assurance that they were only helping raise their own progeny.

This, we are social animals; and to form a family unit is more beneficial. The pressure comes from out own instincts in a way, its comforting to have someone who is always there. Me, I like manogomy myself but I am not pressured to remain in a relationship that is not beneficial.

Socialization =/= monogamy.

Based off of the level of sexual dimorphism and size of our testicles relative to our brains, we are likely driven somewhat biologically towards monogamy.

What does a low level of sexual dimorphism have to do with monogamy? Bonobos have about the same level of sexual dimorphism and share upwards of 98% of our genes, and they're decidedly not monogamous.

"it worked" doesn't deny the fact that it's not "best" if all it means is survival. I don't believe it is, particularly when it comes to competing in the modern world. Either way, the wider truth is that people generally do better when they have proper male and female parental figures, which statistically among a large population is not going to be anyone but their natural parents very often. Like I said, isolated anecdotes do not affect the overall reality in society.

What standard are you using to judge what type of family unit is "best"? I also would not call a tribe as old and storied as the Cree an "isolated anecdote".

What standard are you using to judge what type of family unit is "best"?

Success compared to others, both historically and lives of individuals in modern times. Like Europeans from a few centuries back, they got to technology far ahead of any others. Today, criminals, dregs and losers having a fatherless trend or piss poor parents.

I also would not call a tribe as old and storied as the Cree an "isolated anecdote".

Are you talking about a destroyed/conquered society? ;)

Success compared to others, both historically and lives of individuals in modern times. Like Europeans from a few centuries back, they got to technology far ahead of any others. Today, criminals, dregs and losers having a fatherless trend or piss poor parents.

Are you talking about a destroyed/conquered society? ;)

So you think that nuclear families are "good" because they're more likely to produce individuals who will grow up to rape and pillage?

You're biting off an awful lot if you're attributing technological advances in Europe to more people having two parents. I think the fact that northern Europe had a less hospitable climate with fewer untapped resources and a larger population than North America might have had something to do with it.

What does a low level of sexual dimorphism have to do with monogamy? Bonobos have about the same level of sexual dimorphism and share upwards of 98% of our genes, and they're decidedly not monogamous.

No, Sarkhaan's right, testicle ratio does have some correlation, Bonobo's have far larger proportionally and gorillas have far smaller, I would need to get my book for a full explanation but I don't have it on hand, though I suppose I could Google...

*googles*

EDIT *and hopes people don't check my google history, odd results*

Right, there is correlation but you're right that Bonobos are roughly the same, but this means we perhaps shouldn't be monogamous.

Quick Link (http://primatediaries.blogspot.com/2007/11/polyamory-and-evolution-of-jealous-god.html)

I might write out some stuff from the book, which is Genetics by Matt Ridley, when I get my hands on it,

No one said anything about nuclear families, but technically, the answer to this question is yes and no. Monogamy is the real issue here, or to put it another way, not the opposite, if not strict monogamy. This is how civilizations evolved, the more socially advanced ones thought this way, and they were also more advanced overall and dominated the others in one way or another. Also, trying to use as proof of success historical trends, or assumed ones with the scope and context of today's society is not that relevant. What's relevant is that today's society had those monogamous roots, hence why monogamy is here today in one form or another.
Whose society are you speaking of?

Plenty of societies continue to exist without those 'monogamous roots'. In fact, a HUGE (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Polygamy_world_map.png/800px-Polygamy_world_map.png) proportion of the societies currently in existence allow polygamy, not to mention the instance of polygamy practicsed by particular religious groups within Western Industrialised societies; and frankly, I challenge your assertion that the socieities of the industrialised west are rooted (http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/PLSRR1.PDF) in such a thing. Then again, I guess it depends on when you start your timeline, doesn't it? Sort of like the analysis of the nuclear family, an even more recent construct.

That's assuming a "nuclear family" really is not the best way. I do believe that presently it is when it's done right. People often choose to not believe that out of convenience or delusion, but there is no hard facts behind the claim that non-traditional families are better or even OK for child rearing compared to nuclear family. You seem to be claiming that there is some evidence that nuclear families are better...and it is...where? Or is your claim that "well we don't really know if either are better, so let's stick with what we've got, eh?"

And your comment of no hard facts behind claim that...non-traditional families are "even OK"?

Seriously?

You're pushing it a little far, hmmm?

It's up in the air, and isolated anecdotes, as always, do not prove anything about the trend. True. I'm glad you see your comments for what they are.



How so? In that the majority of societies over time have been disproportionately polygamous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy). Not monogamous. Including what has now become 'western' culture.


Key word being easier, not better. Define better, thanks.



"it worked" doesn't deny the fact that it's not "best" if all it means is survival. I don't believe it is, particularly when it comes to competing in the modern world. Either way, the wider truth is that people generally do better when they have proper male and female parental figures, which statistically among a large population is not going to be anyone but their natural parents very often. Like I said, isolated anecdotes do not affect the overall reality in society.
Your 'overall reality' lacks substantiation. I'll wait for your evidence that 'proper male and female parental figures 'are 'best' when it comes to survival in the 'modern world'.

Are you talking about a destroyed/conquered society? ;)

You have a funny definition of destroyed/conquered when currently, my people continue to speak our language, practice our culture, and have legal status as a Nation, including the right to apply our own laws, and self-govern. Tsk, tsk, moniyaw ignorance.

So you think that nuclear families are "good" because they're more likely to produce individuals who will grow up to rape and pillage?

In a sense, sure, because they can. Just like people in general do what they can get away with. The ones below didn't have that choice.

You're biting off an awful lot if you're attributing technological advances in Europe to more people having two parents.

That's because that's not what I'm doing. I tried to say that a more ordered family is a trait of relative advancement.

I think the fact that northern Europe had a less hospitable climate with fewer untapped resources and a larger population than North America might have had something to do with it.

A lot of things affect culture, but I wouldn't say pure weather defined what a culture becomes. It might contribute to it, but not nearly as much as you suggest. I'm not talking about some politically correct morality here, just the hard fact that Europeans had certain social traits and dominated or spread their influence because they beat the rest in the technology race at some point.

But speaking of North America's relatively small indigenous population, how would you then explain things to the south? Mesoamericans had huge populations. They imploded and fractured long before any Europeans came along, then they were thoroughly dominated.

You have a funny definition of destroyed/conquered when currently, my people continue to speak our language, practice our culture, and have legal status as a Nation, including the right to apply our own laws, and self-govern. Not to mention we are the largest, and most geographically spread out aboriginal people in the world. Tsk, tsk, moniyaw ignorance.

I'm not trying to offend you, but be realistic. You're talking about a relatively obscure culture on the global scale. The more realistic thing I would say is that in general, Native Americans were absorbed into modern America. Much like most of the world was absorbed, influenced, or modeled after the west at some point.

I suspect this would be an important book to read related to my earlier post about male dominated city-state society of the West arising in Greece,

Aristophanes' Male and Female Revolutions (http://books.google.com/books?id=vXj70WVFw58C&dq=aristophanes+male+domination+city+states&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0)

Emotional neediness.

I have found very few people who are actually, when the chips are down, willing to have NSA sex with others, because they can't handle not having some sort of emotional connection. Some 'chance' at a relationship. For many people, too freaking many men included, sex isn't that good unless you have some bond or possible bond with the person you're fucking.

I didn't want to believe it, btw. And I still hope against hope that I can find a decent fuckbuddy for the next few months...but I'm not holding my breath.

The only bond I require is the bond of "we're both not morons". I just can't fuck someone without some high-level verbal foreplay, I don't care how hot she is.

But speaking of North America's relatively small indigenous population, how would you then explain things to the south? Mesoamericans had huge populations. They imploded and fractured long before any Europeans came along, then they were thoroughly dominated.

If you are honestly trying to posit that polygamy led to this (let's just ignore for a moment the fact that aboriginal peoples in the Americas even outside of Canada and the US continue to maintain their language, and culture including marital and child-rearing customs...cuz that might be inconvenient to your shakey argument) then you really need to back your shit up.

The only bond I require is the bond of "we're both not morons". I just can't fuck someone without some high-level verbal foreplay, I don't care how hot she is.

Ditto. Idiocy is an instant turn off.

I'm try to offend you, but be realistic. You're talking about a relatively obscure culture on the global scale. The more realistic thing I would say is that in general, Native Americans were absorbed into modern America. Much like most of the world was absorbed, influenced, or modeled after the west at some point.

That is the stupidest statement I've read in quite some time.

You have a very poor understanding of the socio-political nature of the globe as a whole.

'Influence' is easy enough to come by...'modeled after'? You can't ignore how customs/influence become co-opted by regional cultures, yet I think you are doing just that. 'Absorbed'? Flat out false...

The Cree, overall, are a very small percentage of the global population, but share fundamental child-rearing beliefs with billions of other human beings currently in existence. Point being, two models (cut very plainly) exist in this world, right now, and both seem to be doing just fine. You cannot, without extensive analysis and evidence to back your ass up, claim that monogamy led to industrialisation whilst polygamy has led to...whatever it is you think it's led to.

I'd be willing to have this discussion if you were willing to provide some sort of evidence to support your claims...

what a totally bullshit argument. "That's the way it's been so it must be good". Need I point out how many atrocities that could so conveniently justify? Monogamy is good if it works for the people involved. It's not if it doesn't. End of story.

whilst polygamy has led to...whatever it is you think it's led to.

godlessness and savagery, obviously.

godlessness and savagery, obviously.

Mormons? Godless? Haven't you seen South Park?

No, I think Dim is right on this one.

Whenever I read a scientific paper, I always check to make sure none of the authors are bastards.

If you are honestly trying to posit that polygamy led to this

I'm not. You're being erroneous in assuming because I'm pointing out monogamy as a cultural advantage in one culture, that a weaker society must be polygamist. For one, the concepts of monogamy can and do have degrees, and variations of these could be attributed to the cultural differences. So you see, the fact that Native Americans did manage to survive for so long over inhospitable environments naturally suggests other tribes we probably never heard of did not survive, who were likely not as ordered as the survivors in family/tribe.

The main point I'm arguing here isn't really about one particular culture vs another one. I'm only using them as examples to make the point of the greater trend.

That is the stupidest statement I've read in quite some time.

You have a very poor understanding of the socio-political nature of the globe as a whole.

Flattery will get you nowhere. ;)

'Influence' is easy enough to come by...'modeled after'? You can't ignore how customs/influence become co-opted by regional cultures, yet I think you are doing just that. 'Absorbed'? Flat out false...

I don't get what you're saying. I guess you just don't agree.

I'd be willing to have this discussion if you were willing to provide some sort of evidence to support your claims...

You're using the internet, living in a modern home? You have laws and own land?

what a totally bullshit argument. "That's the way it's been so it must be good".

No, my correction to that quote would be "that's the way it's been, so that's why it is how it is today (and it having not been that way perhaps wouldn't have advanced civilization as much)"

No, my correction to that quote would be "that's the way it's been, so that's why it is how it is today (and it having not been that way perhaps wouldn't have advanced civilization as much)"

Because naturally, the "way its been" inherently represents something optimized.

That's why I don't wear pants.

Because naturally, the "way its been" inherently represents something optimized.

It does??

It does??

Well sure. Its been monogamous in some cultures, therefore it wouldn't have advanced more quickly if it had been something else.

Its true, I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

I wouldn't disagree that a male-dominated society might lead to a more mechanised society, and that would lead to technological supremacy.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that the correlation could be explored.

Natural-state living vs. Urban-state living
Polygamy vs. Monogamy
Female consensus influenced vs Male dominate influenced
Sustainable agrarian vs. Destructive mechanised

One could say war has driven the type of technology we have today, and serious war occurs when city states become large enough to become organised about it.

Cities drive monogamy because of space/cost issues and, in monogamy, the man has far greater advantages in running the show rather than tribal where group consensus is required.

This is all very shaky theory,

Well sure. Its been monogamous in some cultures, therefore it wouldn't have advanced more quickly if it had been something else.

Its true, I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

Well it's totally possible that chimpanzees could dominate us one day, but Charlton Heston or Mark Wahlberg would save us.

Also, spoon.

Well it's totally possible that chimpanzees could dominate us one day, but Charlton Heston or Mark Wahlberg would save us.

Also, spoon.

Heston is getting old and Wahlberg is one of those hollywood types that would side with the chimpanzees.

If an actor is going to save us, its going to be Kevin Spacey.

Nah, my vote is on Christopher Walken.

I assumed monogamous relationships arose because females desired male help in raising offspring, and males wanted assurance that they were only helping raise their own progeny.

Socialization =/= monogamy.


That's not exactly what I am saying. But a monogamous relationship does provide all the benefits of socialization and etc.

Heston is getting old and Wahlberg is one of those hollywood types that would side with the chimpanzees.


Heston is Dead, and Wahlberg is a whimp.

With polygamy, women can pick only the sexiest men, and all the other men don't get laid. Monogamy is communism!

;)

One could suggest that it's more natural where women live as a group with men in and out as certain protection and foraging but not as the central dominant member of society.
so you think something akin to a lion's pride is the ideal?

I don't think monogamy comes from men alone. I think it's from both sexes. There's evolutionary benefits for both sexes in being monogamous - reducing chance of sexual disease springs to mind.
Also reducing incidence of inbreeding and genetic faults. If women were to do as you suggest - having 'prides' of females with just a couple of men to service them, they would run the risk of every child having the same genetic faults and the next generation the risk of inbreeding.
Monogamy encourages parents to 'protect' their offspring more. A man would be more likely to risk death to save a child he knew was definitely his own.
Our brains and bodies develop awfully slowly, as a result we needed the safety and security of a family unit in order to reach sexual maturity. As a rule, the monogamous relationship offers the best safety & security.

After a drama-filled weekend I'm wondering...

Where does the pressure for monogamy come from?

I was rambling among friends that I thought things would be better if women sort of lived together, supported each other and whatnot and then picked men as and when they wanted, leaving men to sit around watching TV and drinking beer or whatever they wanted to do.

I ask because I see a few relationships where the woman's invested and the guy is pretty much taking it for granted and I wonder why women put up with it.

There's clearly pressure to be in a relationship but where does that pressure come from? Even if it's evolution, it's still created enormous cultural influences from the Prince/Princess of fairy tales, true love, poems and whatnot. Has it become something over and above instinct, a sort of separate expectation that is, well, almost unnatural, constrictive in some ways?

Should we separate lust/love from relationships or, at the very very least, try to move away from this one man/one woman pressure?

My vague conclusion was that the pressure for monogamy comes mostly from men even though women are most affected by it, it just seems to lead to a lot of broken hearts and, worse, people stuck in dead-end relationships.

I've a feeling that monogamy can be laid on the step of religion. Can we even seperate lust from love? Naa I don't think so.

Can we even seperate lust from love? Naa I don't think so.
It's quite straightforward. Lust is about personal gratification and ownership. Love is about giving yourself to others, prepared to take nothing in return.

The question is whether an attitude of love naturally lends itself to monogamy, and I personally think not. Why should I deny some people my empathy and assistance in order to give it exclusively to one other person? It would seem unreasonable if I were genuinely acting in the best interests of those around me to focus my efforts solely on one individual at the expense of the rest. The only way I could justify that approach is if I knew everyone was being taken care of by someone else; to do that right would require organization, and organized marriages seem unreasonable given the lack of possible input from the couple involved.

The idea of monogamy requires either imposition or leaves some people out in the cold, bereft of the exclusive care that the coupled receive. On the other hand, the same applies equally to Polygamy, albeit less so given the lack of pressure on people to be selective - it's still about picking and choosing people we like to be in our clique and leaving those we don't to take care of themselves.

Arguments defending exclusive relationships of any kind are based on two attitudes - "it's less effort" and "I get what I want out of it". Love would throw both of these aside.

I've a feeling that monogamy can be laid on the step of religion. Can we even seperate lust from love? Naa I don't think so.

Well, I don't know about you, but I know enough people (me included) who can.
Although it's quite popular to mistake lust for love. Rarely the other way around.

so you think something akin to a lion's pride is the ideal?

No, and I'm not even sure that's how lion pride's work.

I'm simply noting the pressure to be in a relationship, to 'find a partner' and further noting that this can lead to dead-end relationships, in general to the greater detriment of the female though not all the time.

I don't think monogamy comes from men alone. I think it's from both sexes. There's evolutionary benefits for both sexes in being monogamous - reducing chance of sexual disease springs to mind.

Going a little off-trail here but I don't necessarily think the spread of disease is an overall bad thing, much of our evolution has been fueled by disease, more, I'd say, than fighting off other animals.

Further, easily spread diseases tend to be less virulent and less harmful, often becoming simply another facet of our bodies.

Anyway, meandering thoughts aside.

Also reducing incidence of inbreeding and genetic faults. If women were to do as you suggest - having 'prides' of females with just a couple of men to service them, they would run the risk of every child having the same genetic faults and the next generation the risk of inbreeding.

That's not really what I suggest, I'm not even against relationships, I broadly agree with Ryadn's earlier point about 'one person for life'.

Monogamy encourages parents to 'protect' their offspring more. A man would be more likely to risk death to save a child he knew was definitely his own.

A group of men and women should be just as effective however,

Our brains and bodies develop awfully slowly, as a result we needed the safety and security of a family unit in order to reach sexual maturity. As a rule, the monogamous relationship offers the best safety & security.

This I agree with somewhat for the early stages of development, say until about 5 years old, but only somewhat.

We were discussing the role grandparents might have taken in caring for a child, while the younger, stronger and healthier parents helped sustain the community, do parents really, really need to be the primary caregivers?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-x-chromosome-and-monogamy


I think we are socialized to believe in Monogamy our tendency is to be Polygamous. If you look at any other ape it tends to be an alpha male/female thing. This is the beginnings of class structure.

Well, I don't know about you, but I know enough people (me included) who can.
Although it's quite popular to mistake lust for love. Rarely the other way around.

So you are telling me that you can love without the lust?

Bear in mind here I'm talking of love for your partner/partners, spouses, singificant others, not platonic love, not the love one has for their children, siblings, parents etc..

Bear in mind here I'm talking of love for your partner/partners, spouses, singificant others, not platonic love, not the love one has for their children, siblings, parents etc..
People can easily come to treat others as part of themselves, and it doesn't have to be about self-interest or sexual gratification. It might be more of a female than a male thing, but connection on an emotional level can happen between people regardless of what they think about each-other's appearance, social desirability, wealth or level of fitness.

It's probably less common nowadays than getting plastered and hitting it off at the bar as a mutual convenience, but it's still possible.

Two theories on how Monogamy came about

Religion: "It was written, Man shall not serve two masters."

Survival: "If man cannot satify woman, why piss off two?"

I think we're geared, genetically, to serial monogamy on a 5-7 year cycle. I could go into a lot of observations about genetic diversity being best served by multiple partners and family stability being best served by one so the 5-7 year cycle is a sort of compromise designed by nature to serve both.

Two theories on how Monogamy came about

Religion: "It was written, Man shall not serve two masters."

Survival: "If man cannot satify woman, why piss off two?"

And THAT is why monogamy would be good for me, were marraige an issue.

What does a low level of sexual dimorphism have to do with monogamy? Bonobos have about the same level of sexual dimorphism and share upwards of 98% of our genes, and they're decidedly not monogamous.

Sexual dimorphism increases in species that are polygynous.

Add to this the issue of size and habitat (larger primates and those that are terrestrial show increased dimorphism), we would expect somewhat more dimorphism in humans (both larger and terrestrial) than in bonobos and common chimps, yet we don't see it. One of the major differences is in dimorphic canine size, which is non-existant in humans

Sexual dimorphism increases in species that are polygynous.

Add to this the issue of size and habitat (larger primates and those that are terrestrial show increased dimorphism), we would expect somewhat more dimorphism in humans (both larger and terrestrial) than in bonobos and common chimps, yet we don't see it. One of the major differences is in dimorphic canine size, which is non-existant in humans

Polygynous? Do you mean polygamous? Primates in general aren't any more gender dimorphic than humans, they're have a similar level of it. Aren't human males generally larger and stronger, facial hair, more aggressive, etc? What's the big difference?

People can easily come to treat others as part of themselves, and it doesn't have to be about self-interest or sexual gratification. It might be more of a female than a male thing, but connection on an emotional level can happen between people regardless of what they think about each-other's appearance, social desirability, wealth or level of fitness.

It's probably less common nowadays than getting plastered and hitting it off at the bar as a mutual convenience, but it's still possible.

Okay then let me put it this way. Do you love your spouse, bf/gf significan't other, partner or partners, with out also lusting after them?

Let me straighten out just what I am asking with my original question.

Can we seperate the love we feel for our partners from the lust that we feel for them, or are both intertwined?

anyway.

as long as there is love, it doesnt matter what living arrangements are, there will still be broken hearts. not getting married wont change that.

In my case I think both are intertwined. I suppose you separate out just the lust easier than just the love.

Platonic love generally does not exist if you do not have some type of family bond. Can you love the people you go bowling with or work with. Yes, I suppose but not in the same way you would love a mate.

The very fact that you are willing to be exclusive with that person should speak volumes.

In my case I think both are intertwined. I suppose you separate out just the lust easier than just the love.

Platonic love generally does not exist if you do not have some type of family bond. Can you love the people you go bowling with or work with. Yes, I suppose but not in the same way you would love a mate.

The very fact that you are willing to be exclusive with that person should speak volumes.

...wait, what? You can't love someone without being sexually attracted to them unless they're related to you? That's ridiculous. I have a number of (non-related) friends that I love a great deal, and I have no desire to be sexual with them in the least. In fact, that would disturb me.

I think question becomes can you love your friends as much as you love your mate (assuming you have one).

I am not sure friendship is the same as love. Maybe it is just me. I can be friends with someone I meet at the bus stop that does not mean I "love" them. There is a difference which is hard to articulate. If I could articulate it I would work for Hallmark, instead I work for a computer company.

I submit I am not even sure platonic love exists. It seems to me it more about denial or suppression of one's feeling. If you think of the people who thought this whole concept up. Plato was likely homosexual leaning if not all the way falling over. Socrates the jury is still out on him.

I don't want to hijack this thread so I will desist.

After a drama-filled weekend I'm wondering...

Where does the pressure for monogamy come from?

I was rambling among friends that I thought things would be better if women sort of lived together, supported each other and whatnot and then picked men as and when they wanted, leaving men to sit around watching TV and drinking beer or whatever they wanted to do.

I ask because I see a few relationships where the woman's invested and the guy is pretty much taking it for granted and I wonder why women put up with it.

There's clearly pressure to be in a relationship but where does that pressure come from? Even if it's evolution, it's still created enormous cultural influences from the Prince/Princess of fairy tales, true love, poems and whatnot. Has it become something over and above instinct, a sort of separate expectation that is, well, almost unnatural, constrictive in some ways?

Should we separate lust/love from relationships or, at the very very least, try to move away from this one man/one woman pressure?

My vague conclusion was that the pressure for monogamy comes mostly from men even though women are most affected by it, it just seems to lead to a lot of broken hearts and, worse, people stuck in dead-end relationships.

Ahem. If I may, it seems to me--

*dodges rotten vegetables* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565572&highlight=monogamy)

Ahem. If I may, it seems to me--

*dodges rotten vegetables* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565572&highlight=monogamy)

*Quickly checks to see if I posted in that thread - nope*

I never saw it.

I have a friend who's in what seems to be a dead-end relationship and the discussion over the weekend was whether we should help out, my opinion was that it's her relationship, friends said it's a dead end, I replied that this was really their perception, they called me a coward, I called them bitchy, drinks were thrown.

I might ask another question, are females more likely to get involved in other people's relationships whereas males are likely to leave it all alone?

What I really liked was that I was supposed to do something, they were whining and complaining and then, apparently because I'm the guy, I was supposed to intervene.

What the...

/blog

I thought "Monogamy" was an old wooden ship.

I am not sure friendship is the same as love. Maybe it is just me. I can be friends with someone I meet at the bus stop that does not mean I "love" them. There is a difference which is hard to articulate. If I could articulate it I would work for Hallmark, instead I work for a computer company.

Someone you meet at the bus stop doesn't even qualify as an acquaintance. If that's the quality of all your platonic relationships, then perhaps love without lust does not exist for you.

For me, however, it most certainly does. I've known my best friend since I was 11, and I love her deeply--she is one of three people I would kill for. I have no romantic or sexual feelings for her at all (and I don't believe they're repressed--I'm a bisexual woman, I have lusted after many men and women, and the idea of getting it on with my best friend is like the idea of my grandparents having sex). She isn't related to me by blood, but I care more about her than most people I do share blood with.

Oh boy, not platonic relationships and love again. I've said it before, true platonic friendships are generally and essentially an inherent lie, and the exceptions are rare. Obviously family members don't count, but neither do work partners or any other person you are formally or circumstantially forced to interact with. And by true friendship, I mean people you deliberately choose to spend significant time with. And baseless, knee jerk reactions to this don't refute anything. They are delusional and a psychologist might tell you it cements the point. I mean seriously, folks, I'm not talking about mindless rambling or anything like that. If you believe men and women in general have enough in common to form platonic friendships, you must be in your teens and are seeing what you want to see, if not, you're just slow.

And "love". Romantic love is a biological response, just like lust, flinching, or hunger.

After a drama-filled weekend I'm wondering...

Where does the pressure for monogamy come from?

I was rambling among friends that I thought things would be better if women sort of lived together, supported each other and whatnot and then picked men as and when they wanted, leaving men to sit around watching TV and drinking beer or whatever they wanted to do.

I ask because I see a few relationships where the woman's invested and the guy is pretty much taking it for granted and I wonder why women put up with it.

There's clearly pressure to be in a relationship but where does that pressure come from? Even if it's evolution, it's still created enormous cultural influences from the Prince/Princess of fairy tales, true love, poems and whatnot. Has it become something over and above instinct, a sort of separate expectation that is, well, almost unnatural, constrictive in some ways?

Should we separate lust/love from relationships or, at the very very least, try to move away from this one man/one woman pressure?

My vague conclusion was that the pressure for monogamy comes mostly from men even though women are most affected by it, it just seems to lead to a lot of broken hearts and, worse, people stuck in dead-end relationships.

I feel ya.

Here is my take.
as society has sought to more equally distribute resources so to did women and men become more equally distributed.
In the past the rich could have multiple women, the middle classes could have one or two. and the dirt poor became eunuchs.

the solution to your problems is capitalism in sex.
A hot sex chick should have more then one guy providing for her.
And likely wise a rich man should have multiple women.
See Tibet if you want to see how it could work.

Ah, yes, Tibet, the most coveted lifestyle.

You want to know how it will be
Me and him OR you and me
You both stand there your long hair flowing
Your eyes alive your mind still growing
Saying to me--"What can we do now that we both love you",
I love you too-- I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three
You are afraid--embarrassed too
No one has ever said such a thing to you
Your mother's ghost stands at your shoulder
Face like ice--a little bit colder
Saying to you--"you can not do that, it breaks
All the rules you learned in school"
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three
We love each other--it's plain to see
There's just one answer comes to me
--Sister--lovers--water brothers
And in time--maybe others
So you see--what we can do--is to try something new--
If you're crazy too--
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three.

- Triad, performed by Jefferson Airplane with Grace Slick on vocals, about her relationship with David Crosby and Paul Kantner, women eh?