Giant Polygamy Sidetrack!

Because it only took Viking-Sensei three years (and the approaching end of Errant Story) to come up with a better name for "General Discussions"
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Sareth »

This is going to be loooooooooong. Honestly, I'll be surprised if anyone reads most of it, let alone all of it. But I'd love it if people did, and then responded...

***

There are some marvelous replies here, and I am going to add to them. Before I do, however, I want to make a statement about the nature of discussion. I *want* to hear from people who disagree with me. I may come across as ranty and actionist and such, but if I give the impression that I think those that disagree with me need to stay silent, I want that pointed out to me. I value free speech and the sanctity of belief highly, and feel that only through dialogue can we reach a better situation for all. If you disagree with me, say so, and say why. I promise to listen and give respect to you.

Now... I am with Impy on this. Like Impy, I have some personal experience in the matter, though in different directions. For one, I have seen no indications to being bi-sexual. I can admire the aesthetic of the male body, but it does nothing for me physically. However, I have come to accept that I am poly-amorous. I can, and have in the past, had romantic, sexual, and partnership interests with multiple women at the same time. (I have not, as of yet, had a comfortable opportunity to act on the interests, but the interests were undeniably there. I have, however, lived in situations that could have counted as group marriages in all but the sexual realm, and found them HIGHLY beneficial. The benefits Impy mentions are quite real, and I can personally vouch for them.)

In the interest of establishing where I am coming from, I am finishing my Master's Degree (with intent to immediately move on to a Doctoral program) in which my area of specialization is computer mediated communication in regards to the creation of identity. To explain that rather jargonistic terminology, I believe very strongly that many of our seemingly fundamental ideas about identity (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) are SOCIALLY CREATED. Yes, sexual characteristics and differences exist. I don't care who you are, if you have a penis, certain mental and physical behaviors will surface different from the ones you would exhibit if you had a vagina. There are hormonal differences that alter our outlooks. However, the majority of who we think we are is the result of social expectation. The vast majority of the time, when society says "Women are X, men are Y" this is the result of social definitions created over time that we have forgotten we created in the first place. There is no physical or mental reason why men are doctors and women are nurses. (In fact, historically, this was not the case, but is a recent development.)

How does this reflect on the idea of polygamy?

Historically, polygamy has been the rule, not the exception. Throughout recorded history, most societies have practiced it. In fact, it was not the "backwards ass" cultures practicing it, it was, in fact, the most advanced ones. The European/Christian dominant culture of today only achieved the lead in the last 500 years (out of roughly 6,000 years of recorded history) and imposed the idea that monogamy was more advanced.

Is polygamy "backwards?" I would posit the answer is both yes and no. The "yes" comes in solely because, as strictly defined historically, polygamy is one man, multiple women. Modern standards of gender equality (which we are far from perfect at, but improving in) would reject this as a sexist standard, and rightly so. However, if we understand polygamy to include a broader definition (including one woman, multiple men, or multiple men and women both) then I would posit that polygamy is not backwards at all. In fact, if one wants to argue from a strictly biological/naturalist position, monogamy is the backwards position as it reduces genetic viability. (The vast majority of animal species are not monogamous, which contributes to genetic health).

The original basis of marriage was sex. To address marriage, one has to understand the reasons for sex. Humans had sex for a number of reasons:
Reproduction
Pleasure
Health
Bonding

In terms of reproduction, monogamy is actually less beneficial than polygamy. It reduces genetic diversity and increases the dangers of non-reproduction. (In monogamy, if a fertile partner marries an infertile partner, the fertile partner's reproductive potential is wasted.) Practiced in the extreme, it can even increase the risk of poor genetics, as it encourages the passing on of bad genes (such as hemophilia) multiple times.

If we examine sex as pleasure, monogamy is, once again, the loser in comparison. When sex is engaged in for fun (and let's face it, a good fuck is well worth having to clean up after) skill and experience are major factors. Monogamy requires two amateurs to figure it all out by themselves. It will be awkward, clumsy, and limited. In other words, it won't be nearly as fun. Polygamy, however, allows for sexual mentorship, where people can learn tricks and techniques from one another and share them about. The pleasure is enhanced through shared knowledge and practice.

When we examine health, this one is a mixed bag. There are a number of studies indicating that sexual activity has health benefits. Yes, there are risks involved. Chief amongst these for women is pregnancy, which can be pretty hard on the body, and at times is out-right life threatening. Disease also is a risk. However, abstinence has a different set of risks. For example, abstinent men have a 50% higher risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer than sexually active males. In terms of Monogamy vs. Polygamy this one is a wash. On the one hand, a monogamous person is dependent on one other person's mood/health/availability, reducing opportunities. On the other, a monogamous couple is also exposed to 0 risk in terms of STDs. If anything, I would say that in this one case, monogamy comes out ahead, but only in ways that can be moderated by polygamists through intelligent sexual behavior.

Finally, and most importantly for my personal area of focus, is the bonding issue. This one is going to be lengthy. (As if I've been brief so far.) Sex is very much a bonding act. It is fairly common to ignore this aspect (the One Night Stand is pretty darned common) but in terms of social organizing, it's actually the most important aspect of sex. Reproduction may have been the most important cause for sex amongst primitive humanity (insert snarky comment about "reproductive sex is the only good sex" dictats by certain religious organizations here) but I would posit that reproduction in our overpopulated society is now actually the least valid reason for it. If anything, we should be discouraging sex for reproduction until we are able to better establish an equilibrium.

The sexual act (I am using this in an all inclusive way, as I consider any stimulation of a sexual organ, primary or secondary, to count in this context) can be a bonding act in a couple of ways.

First, it is my own experience that a good sexual act can cause a greater closeness with another individual. It is a very intimate act as one person is trusted to literally enter inside of another. I can think of few greater demonstrations of trust. During orgasm, a euphoria can be created in which the phrase "two become one flesh" feels almost literal. If handled respectfully and well, the short term trust and euphoria can prove to increase long term connection between people. Monogamy restricts this sort of connection to two people. This is not bad in and of itself. However, monogamy insists that it is not possible, healthy, or moral to expand this state of bonding to any other individuals. For many people (I will not insist on all people) this isn't true. These bonds are not limited to specific volumes, where bringing in a third person halves the amount of bond possible for the first two. If used wisely and with respect, the intimacy, trust, and connection can be spread amongst multiple people, creating a web of interconnectivity that is beneficial to the entirety of the web. (If used poorly, however, it can be very bad. More on that later.)

Second, sex and sex-identities can be used as contractual bonding. It is here (at last) that we turn to the subject of marriage itself. At its rawest root, marriage is a monopolization of sex as a commodity. Marriage, as traditionally interpreted, was an identification that the partner(s) and only the partner(s) had sexual rights with an individual. Certainly other things as well came in, such as property rights and such, but in societies where reproduction was the most important thing, sexual rights were the ultimate power. For example, examine early historical texts in terms of the view of infertility. An infertile woman was one of the most wretched creatures imaginable while a woman who dropped a whelp every year was the height of good fortune.

By using this sexual exclusivity as a bargaining chip, groups were able to formally contract bonds between themselves. This could range from two families linking together by matching a daughter and son (mingling the blood into one family) all the way up to kings giving daughters to seal treaties. (This is why the most common polygamist examples to point to in history are stories of kings and their harems.) Marriage sealed these bonds through a blatant contract in which sexual rights were the median of exchange. This is why it has been common to speak of "consummating the marriage." The contract is only fulfilled by an actual sexual claiming, the deal sealed in semen. Modern society has, by and large, forgotten this root, however it is still blatantly recognized in some cultures. In fact, in certain parts of Modern Zimbabwe, 5-10% of marriages are between two women, where the two women enter into the recognized state of sexual exclusivity. This is done to 1) Allow a barren woman to still have children (a surrogate impregnates the other woman, but the children are acknowledged to be the barren woman's offspring legally.) 2) allow an influential woman to garner greater influence through forming marriage contracts with other women (and their families) and 3) Allow women with no sons to inherit to pass their fortune on to a woman.

When viewing marriage and the sexual act as a social recognition of these bonds, in only one way does Monogamy come out on top. Inheritance. When determining inheritance law, unless it is a case of "oldest child takes it all, and every other offspring can suck it" having multiple offspring by multiple spouses complicates the hell out of things. But in terms of viewing marriage and sex as a contract, polygamy allows a greater range of contracts to be negotiated, tying together a larger network of people through sex.

Now, this all has demonstrated a rational process regarding sexual politics, and given polygamy a really rosy standing. Why, then, is Monogamy preferred in the dominant culture(s) of today? Two reasons. First, it's a hell of a lot simpler. And second, religion. I'm actually going to address these in the opposite order, because I want to deal with practicalities as my final note.

When examining the religious aspects of marriage we find a conundrum. It is the common and prevailing view of mainstream western culture (dominated by Christianity) that any marriage arrangement other than monogamy is immoral. This is significantly problematic. The reason is that, in fact, the founding document of Christianity does not, in fact, endorse this. I am referring to the New Testiment (as the Old Testiment is essentially surplanted by the New, and thus its strictures are better studied through Judaism and not Christianity in this discussion.)

The New Testiment is a document of its time, and as such its references to marriage and sexuality are thus reflected. At no time does the New Testiment specifically state "Marriage is to be between two people exclusively." (It does specifically proscribe male-male marriage, but doesn't address female-female marriage.) When speaking of marriage it does refer to monogamous marriage, but it does so simply with the understanding that the practice of the time was monogamy. At the time, the dominant culture under which Isreal lived was Roman. Romans, while rather hedonistic, endorsed monogamy specifically because of the importance of marriage as a contract through which power and inheritance was negotiated. As such the Jewish culture found itself having to align with Roman concepts of marriage simply to survive politically. When discussing marriage in the New Testiment, it is in this context the discussion takes place. As marriage is discussed in order to address the ethical behavior of married people (and not as an endorsement of any particular structure), it does so in the context people would understand. In fact, the closest to a recognition of any form of marriage comes from Paul, when he actually suggests not marrying at all. Paul was a grouchy old prat. Therefor, the argument of the New Testiment as the basis for monogamy is weak. It is actually a gentile imposition on the pre-Christian roots of the faith.

Looking at those roots, Judaism does, in fact, endorse certain forms of marriage. Those forms are, in fact, polygamist. Scholars in the subject suggest that, in fact, polygamy was a minority practice, but this was on account of economic concerns (multiple wives increased expenses for a poor, agrarian farmer). All rules which address forms of marriage do so specifically to define how polygamy was to be practiced, and monogamy was not addressed. For example, first born sons were the heir regardless of which wife bore the child. In terms of monogamous marriages, the same rules applied, but in a "well duh" sort of fashion. In short, monogamous relationships were, in fact, treated as polygamist marriages with only two partners as far as the law (Torah) was concerned.

(An examination of Islamic law will prove similar, the one exception my less-then-comprehensive study of Islam coming up with being that Islamic law specifically states that one is not to marry beyond one's means.)

This, then reveals that the "Christian" understanding of marriage as monogamous is not, in fact, Christian, but is actually a pagan imposition that was avoided by the younger Islamic faith. However, after 2000 years of practical practice by the vast majority of Christians, it is nearly impossible to extricate from the belief system. Never-the-less, as Christianity has been the dominant belief system of Europe and the Americas, our (supposedly) religionless legal system still rests on this cultural hang-up.

I stated I wanted to turn to the practical practice of polygamy last, and now I shall. The reason I wanted to was because it is this, the practical, that is the one area where monogamy is CLEARLY dominant. Why is this? Because it is quite simply easier. If one can find monogamy "good enough" when practicing those earlier reasons for sex (reproduction, pleasure, health, and bonding) then polygamy adds unnecessary stress and complication.

Polygamist relationships are not just harder than monogamous relationships, they are much harder. A monogamist may have to deal with such stresses as "I'm not supposed to look at that sexy girl, it's unfair to my wife." But those are (relatively) easy since they are always reduced down to "just say no." (I'm not saying this is easy. It's not. It's simply easier relatively speaking.) For the polygamist the situation is extremely complicated.

To put it in mathematical terms, 1+1 = 2. In every significant decision that would impact the marriage, the decision always is complicated by the relationship. You, as the decision maker, have to account for you, and for your relationship with that other person. There are two items here. Now, if we add just one more person in a truly equitable relationship, the complications are not increased by one. It's not 1+1+1=3. Instead, it is factored. If you are the principle making the decision you now have to consider you, your relationship with partner A, your relationship with partner B, partner A's relationship with partner B, AND the relationship of all three of you at once. 1+1+1=5. An increase of only one person leads to a two and a half times increase in complications. Add a fourth person, and you have 12 different relational mixes you have to factor in. Things get messy FAST.

This is, quite frankly, very hard to do. Monogamy is a hell of a lot simpler. With so many additional factors to consider in a grouping, the potential for misunderstanding, mistake, and hurt becomes radically higher. Trying to keep everyone happy takes a degree of diplomacy that beggars the negotiation taking place in the monogamous relationship. And there will be mistakes. The key to a successful polygamist relationship is a high amount of trust and communication. If either one of these fails, then the relationship will disintegrate very, very messily. And even with these, there will be a lot of moments of hurt. I have yet to see a monogamous relationship that did not have bad days and rough times. Just think of how a poly relationship will go.

But it can, and does happen. There are poly relationships that have worked well. They weren't perfect, there were bad days, there were issues and problems, but the members of the poly relationship were able to not just endure them, but in fact the very reasons they were faced by these complicated issues proved to be the same reasons they survived them. When you have not just one person you can rely on and turn to for comfort, but two, or three, or five, the nurturing and support is all that much warmer and stronger. When one person in the relationship faces hard times (such as a job loss, cancer, or loss of a parent) there are so many more hands to pick her up and help her.

Most people can't do it.

A few can.

I, personally, believe that we should allow it to be openly and freely offered as an option.

But I welcome rebuttal.
Image
Image
User avatar
mindstalk
Typo-Seeking Missile
Posts: 916
Joined: November 9th, 2007, 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by mindstalk »

I read all that. Just a few comments:

I don't think any healthy society can have polygyny as a normal thing. Normally accepted, but given human birth ratios, if most women are in 2+ wife situations, most men must be wifeless.

"advanced societies"... Greece and Rome went to official monogamy. India, Japan, and China I'm not sure of the details, but I think you often had that even if there were multiple wives, one was primary, and often there'd just be one wife, but multiple concubines. (Of course, every time I say this, I wonder about translation problems; not like they used the word 'wife'!) And of course there we're talking about the elite tip of the social pyramid, not the masses of society. Main point is that polygyny often isn't flat, but skewed to "one pair, plus others" -- others, of course, for the man; the women don't get a similarly approved choice.

And on the other side, many anthropologists say serial monogamy seems to be the human norm, given hunter-gatherer societies, especially the more egalitarian ones. Man and woman pair-bond for a few years, often breaking up when the kids are 4 or 7, critical ages (end of long nursing, or more independence by the kid). Westerners still try to stay together longer for the kids, but a sexually liberated pattern of jealous pair-bonding, but not necessarily lifelong, is obviously similar.

Jealousy, of course, serves a plausible evolutionary role when the father contributes to raising offspring; it helps reassure him that the child is actually his own. Different function for mothers, but still defensible.

Extended support networks in the 'natural' case would of course be family or the tribe/village, no sex needed.
User avatar
ChunLing
Advocate of Justice
Posts: 858
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by ChunLing »

This talk of ideal sexual morality is all very well and good (or not, depending on whether you agree with it or not) but none of it addresses the basic question.

In many societies, the accepted practice of sexual relations begins with rigid discrimination between men and women from an early age, men are encouraged to think of women as little better than animals, and the women are not encouraged to think at all. Typical of such societies is the practice of cutting of the clitoris and portions of the labia or other surface female genitals involved in feeling sexual pleasure. Rape is typically encouraged, even within what passes for marriage in such societies. The sex is not healthy in any of the usual senses of that term. It produces a minimal amount of pleasure. It is (often specifically) aimed directly against the idea of close emotional relationships between men and women.

And yet, many such societies have existed for generation upon generation rather than only existing for two or three generations as is the case for most types of society.

That is to say, in examining what kinds of sexual mores are likely to prevail in Tsuiraku society, the question of what kinds of sexual (and social) mores allow for the continuation of the society is very significant. It is also significant that Meji's mother doesn't have any other children. When it is claimed that she was "too drunk to cast a contraceptive spell", this is evidently very drunk indeed. So, we know several important things about Tsuiraku. First, the population did not start out large enough (or properly distributed demographically) to fill the city. Second, the city has been around but hidden for most of the last two thousand years. Third, the city is now very full, close to if not well beyond the maximum population it was originally designed to support. Fourth, most of the females of the population do not reliably become pregnant unless they really want to be pregnant. Fifth, these women probably give birth to most of the children, as we know from multiple sources that psionic capabilities (on which magic is based) has a strong or even overriding genetic component. Finally, we have multiple implicit suggestions as to certain kinds of sexual behavior being rare or closeted. Meji's mom's sexual behavior is sufficiently divergent from "proper" behavior to be a topic of conversation (note that Ellis didn't regal Anne with speculation about her sexual exploits, but rather her obvious age and "gimpiness"). Yaoi is evidently something Meji understands to be more common in fiction than in reality.

So, we can begin by excluding the idea that a woman running around and seeking multiple short-term relationships is considered consistent with the norms of Tsuiraku, whether or not you or I think it should be. We can dispense with the idea that it is usual for a man with total access to the society to have only one grandchild. We can dispense with all suggestions that the sexual mores of the city are undergoing rapid flux due to recent developments in contraceptive technology (though it does appear that the acceptability of sexual relationships with outsiders is undergoing some kind of change).

As for issues of sexual pleasure, bonding, polyamority, etc., I am not sure what the point of such a discussion here would be. I suppose that I have no theoretical objection to most of those things, though in actual practice I find that it is not the case that humans who indulge in many sexual contacts tend to be more respectful of others, particularly those with whom they have no prospects (or desires). I'm always a little nervous letting a person who believes sex is just another way of expressing affection handle, for instance, children. Or my food. Not that I like letting children handle my food, either.
Kill...more...elves.
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Sareth »

Thank you for actually taking the time to read that, Mindstalk. I'm not certain I would have bothered if I hadn't been the one to write it in the first place.
I don't think any healthy society can have polygyny as a normal thing. Normally accepted, but given human birth ratios, if most women are in 2+ wife situations, most men must be wifeless.
Hostorically this has been the condition of polygamy, and it's worked out better than one might expect. A small portion of this can be traced to the fact that male mortality is higher than female mortality, though the ratio is fairly small. The big factor is that amongst the polygamist societies of history, very few people actually engaged in polygamy. It was essentially a rich man's game. If 5% of the marriage age male population has 2 wives, that means that 90% of the women are still in monogamous marriages (given a 100% mariage rate and an equal representation of the genders amongst the marriage age population.) So while what you say is true given the assumptions stated, historically that assumption did not materialize. I would predict that, were we to legalize polygamous marriage, we'd find that to remain true. Perhaps as much as 10% of the population would participate in mixes of one man multiple women, one woman multiple men, and multiples of both sexes. That would still leave 90% of the population traditionally sorted.
"advanced societies"... Greece and Rome went to official monogamy. India, Japan, and China I'm not sure of the details, but I think you often had that even if there were multiple wives, one was primary, and often there'd just be one wife, but multiple concubines. (Of course, every time I say this, I wonder about translation problems; not like they used the word 'wife'!) And of course there we're talking about the elite tip of the social pyramid, not the masses of society. Main point is that polygyny often isn't flat, but skewed to "one pair, plus others" -- others, of course, for the man; the women don't get a similarly approved choice.
Again, true, but I think you're confusing the discussion. You keep using "polygyny," and you are defining it correctly as being one man multiple women. However, what I have been discussing is polygamy. Historically, most polygamist societies have indeed practiced polygyny only. But the assumption you appear to be making is that this is caused by the polygamy itself. I would like to argue that the reason polygamous societies have been almost exclusively polygynous historically was because of the attitude towards women in general. In societies in which women are relegated to property (or at least second class citizens) it would be self evident that the society would allow one man to accumulate multiple pieces of property, while the property would not get the right to suggest getting any similar rights. Modern Western Society still has flaws in terms of equality, but is far closer to that ideal than these previous societies. As such, it is to be expected that polygamy could, in this society, be practiced in ways that would include one woman multiple men and multiple members of both sexes pairings. In fact, I know of one such (non-legally-recognized) family that is precisely that. One woman, multiple men.
And on the other side, many anthropologists say serial monogamy seems to be the human norm, given hunter-gatherer societies, especially the more egalitarian ones. Man and woman pair-bond for a few years, often breaking up when the kids are 4 or 7, critical ages (end of long nursing, or more independence by the kid). Westerners still try to stay together longer for the kids, but a sexually liberated pattern of jealous pair-bonding, but not necessarily lifelong, is obviously similar.
If I understand this correctly, it almost sounds self conflicting. It suggests that the human norm is monogamy, but at the same time, pairing is itself only temporary and humans will move on to other partners. I would posit this is conditional monogamy at best as it does result in multiple partners for an individual, but simply spreads them out.

However, given that, I don't see this as stating that this rules out polygamy. Again, most polygamist societies have only seen a minority population practice it. Part of this is for economic reasons. In a society where one sex is not a financial agent, it becomes very expensive to maintain that sex. Few would be able to support more than one spouse of that gender. The other part is because many people are not suited to or desirous of multiple spouses. However, saying that it is normal that most people will practice monogamy (even in the limited form stated above) does not state ALL people will. Again, I believe that a minority of humanity is both capable of and desirous of polygamist relationship, but are barred from it by the majority simply because "we don't do that here."
Jealousy, of course, serves a plausible evolutionary role when the father contributes to raising offspring; it helps reassure him that the child is actually his own. Different function for mothers, but still defensible.

Extended support networks in the 'natural' case would of course be family or the tribe/village, no sex needed.
No arguments here. But again, the suggestion that these don't necessarily preclude polygamy.

Keep it coming!
Image
Image
User avatar
mindstalk
Typo-Seeking Missile
Posts: 916
Joined: November 9th, 2007, 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by mindstalk »

I don't see what's "self contradiicting" about it. Yes exactly, the suggested norm is one partner at a time, but possbly many such partners in a lifetime. Serial monogamy is exactly what anthropologists call it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Serial_monogamy
Article also gives 3 varieties, social, sexual, and genetic monogamy.
Also says that, speaking of advanced societies, ancient Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt were all monogamous in principle, sometimes with an option of taking a second wife if the first were barren, unless she provided a slave as concubine.

Speaking of contradictions... you said earlier that polygamy was the rule, not the exception. I was taking that strictly and objecting. In your reply you supported me: most *people* have been monogamous, even if most societies allowed for polygamy as an option. So we seem to agree there. Also that a minority of people do go for it, based on resources or mutual inclination. Rather more men will go for it given resources and the lack of need to get mutual consent. Possibly true of women as well. Though I see Wikipedia saying TIbetan fraternal polyandry may often be non-consensual on the part of the woman. And as I noted, nominally monogamous societies often look away from some semi-polygamy, e.g. mistresses and concubines, not to mention prostitution.
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Sareth »

I don't see what's "self contradiicting" about it.
I suppose it's a difference in interpretation of the words. To my mind the idea of monogamy is one persons... period. Not one person at a time. That's why it seemed contradictory to me. However, the "Serial Monogamy" term works for me.
Speaking of contradictions... you said earlier that polygamy was the rule, not the exception. I was taking that strictly and objecting. In your reply you supported me: most *people* have been monogamous, even if most societies allowed for polygamy as an option. So we seem to agree there.
Again, I think we got victimized by differences in interpretation. By "the rule" you took it to mean that "most people practiced" while what I inteded was "most societies permitted." So yes, we both seem to be on the same sheet of music, just arguing about how to represent the base line.

Your final objections do go back, once again, to gender politics. In places where women do not have even nominal equality I would expect your objection to hold quite true. My comments are directed towards equal societies. Unfortunately, we have yet to see examples of equal societies where polygamy is formally permitted, and so we can only speculate. (Unfortunately, it can be argued that we have yet to see equal societies at all, but that's another debate.) The best evidence we can draw on towards that are the growing poly groupings within Western Culture which have to struggle to maintain in a society which gives them next to no legal or social support.
Image
Image
User avatar
ChunLing
Advocate of Justice
Posts: 858
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by ChunLing »

Ah, the old phantom of gender equality.

When it comes to sexuality, men are predators by nature, and women are prey.

I respect both men and women who are able to rise above their respective natures. My feelings about those who don't can hardly contribute to the discussion, but as the innate tendencies of men and women differ, so too do my attitudes towards those behaviors.
Kill...more...elves.
User avatar
Nell
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 308
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 7:59 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Nell »

Ok, here's what I have to say for what it's worth. Since the majority seems to be pro polygamy this might be as productive/useful as nipples on an alligator.
*insert after completing post* Sareth I hate you. What a damn long post.
Sareth wrote: In fact, if one wants to argue from a strictly biological/naturalist position, monogamy is the backwards position as it reduces genetic viability. (The vast majority of animal species are not monogamous, which contributes to genetic health).
You could argue both ways actually.
Sareth wrote: In terms of reproduction, monogamy is actually less beneficial than polygamy. It reduces genetic diversity and increases the dangers of non-reproduction. (In monogamy, Practiced in the extreme, it can even increase the risk of poor genetics, as it encourages the passing on of bad genes (such as hemophilia) multiple times.
In a polygamous relationship, affluent or good looking or *insert attribute* partners would have the advantage and would be flocked to immediately (they already do in monogamy, only if polygamy were implemented this tendency would be far more pronounced) , leaving the less affluent/advantaged with no opportunity to reproduce. Implement polygamy and gradually reproduction will be a privilege tacitly reserved for people with certain attributes, effectively DECREASING genetic versatility.
With monogamy, every person has a greater chance at reproduction/finding that special person.
Also, if those partners that are favoured have any kind of defect, the more chances they have at reproducing the higher the rate of births with genetic defects.
A joe that is healthy and reproductively fit could be ignored for the dude with *insert genetic issue here* if the latter is rich or charismatic and if the former is, compared to all other candidates...just not lovable enough to have a time slot in other people's lives because they are too busy with the prettier/richer/sexier ones. And in cases like the one I just mentioned, genetic defects would go on the rise, not be curbed.
Also, interestingly enough, in first world and developing countries, the trend is for the cultured and affluent to NOT reproduce. The further down the social strata you go, the higher the birth rates. This means it's possible that polygamy would effectively kill the already low birth rates in first world countries.

As for third and second world countries, reverse this, and add lack of sexual education, protection, abortion rights and hygiene. You'll have a boom in population, homeless/orphaned children and venereal diseases.
Sareth wrote: if a fertile partner marries an infertile partner, the fertile partner's reproductive potential is wasted.)
A person can always divorce the infertile partner, or adopt a child that would otherwise be uncared for.
Sareth wrote:If we examine sex as pleasure, monogamy is, once again, the loser in comparison. When sex is engaged in for fun (and let's face it, a good fuck is well worth having to clean up after) skill and experience are major factors. Monogamy requires two amateurs to figure it all out by themselves. It will be awkward, clumsy, and limited. In other words, it won't be nearly as fun. Polygamy, however, allows for sexual mentorship, where people can learn tricks and techniques from one another and share them about. The pleasure is enhanced through shared knowledge and practice.
Or research. Knowledge on the matter is easy to come about these days.

Sometimes it isn't only amateurs, a more skilled partner can stick with the less skilled partner instead of just jumping to a nicer fuck, thus adding to the bonding aspect of sex. It's sticking with the other person and nurturing them despite their weaknesses that makes a relationship special. Polygamy just lets you pick and choose among a potential closetful of people depending on the situation...it's self serving, cheap and easy. The way my narrow minded, idiotic self sees it, Polygamy is and has always been about sex, because if it were about bonding/emotions, friendships are sufficient and the only difference between a friendship and a relationship is sex.
Also, as an aside wouldn't less skilled partners come to resent the more skilled ones or the more *insert attribute here* ones? Coaching doesn't always help people catch up to inherent talent or appearance.



Sareth wrote: In terms of Monogamy vs. Polygamy this one is a wash. On the one hand, a monogamous person is dependent on one other person's mood/health/availability, reducing opportunities. On the other, a monogamous couple is also exposed to 0 risk in terms of STDs. If anything, I would say that in this one case, monogamy comes out ahead, but only in ways that can be moderated by polygamists through intelligent sexual behavior.
Intelligent and people more often than not don't go hand in hand. It's often hard enough in our society to get men, young and old to wear condoms because they get thrills from not doing so and "condoms reduce feeling"
Cynicism aside, an outbreak in a polygamous relationship involves far more collateral damage than in a monogamous relationship. In the time it takes for a person to be diagnosed with venereal diseases (think AIDS for example) they could easily infect their entire network of partners, same goes for the partners, and the partners of the partners, ad nauseum. People are all but infallible and this setup has the potential of bringing harm to a greater number of people accidentally.
Sareth wrote:
First, it is my own experience that a good sexual act can cause a greater closeness with another individual. It is a very intimate act as one person is trusted to literally enter inside of another. I can think of few greater demonstrations of trust. During orgasm, a euphoria can be created in which the phrase "two become one flesh" feels almost literal. If handled respectfully and well, the short term trust and euphoria can prove to increase long term connection between people.
Monogamy restricts this sort of connection to two people. This is not bad in and of itself. However, monogamy insists that it is not possible, healthy, or moral to expand this state of bonding to any other individuals. For many people (I will not insist on all people) this isn't true. These bonds are not limited to specific volumes, where bringing in a third person halves the amount of bond possible for the first two. If used wisely and with respect, the intimacy, trust, and connection can be spread amongst multiple people, creating a web of interconnectivity that is beneficial to the entirety of the web. (If used poorly, however, it can be very bad. More on that later.)
A person only has so much time to spend with a partner and handle work and other obligations. The way I see it, multiple partners only increase the time/commitment/material demands. Spending equal, substantial amounts of time with all of them can be all but impossible if you want to substain other aspects of your life. You may even neglect partners and destroy relationships because there's not enough time.

Also, part of what gives sex meaning and intimacy is the fact it is supposedly reserved for one, carefully chosen person. If this behaviour is expressed with multiple people, it inevitably cheapens it. If the network learns of where they stand in terms of sexual competency, resentment may flourish, hierarchies will begin to appear as well. "Primaries, secondaries, tertiaries". People are gradually objectified in and out of the bedroom.

Quality vs Quantity is what I think when I see this issue. If reproduction is not a priority, why isn't one partner enough? For the bonding/emotional aspect, there's friendships. Why must there be sex for these to be fulfilling?

Sareth wrote: Second, sex and sex-identities can be used as contractual bonding. It is here (at last) that we turn to the subject of marriage itself. At its rawest root, marriage is a monopolization of sex as a commodity. Marriage, as traditionally interpreted, was an identification that the partner(s) and only the partner(s) had sexual rights with an individual. Certainly other things as well came in, such as property rights and such, but in societies where reproduction was the most important thing, sexual rights were the ultimate power. For example, examine early historical texts in terms of the view of infertility. An infertile woman was one of the most wretched creatures imaginable while a woman who dropped a whelp every year was the height of good fortune.
I don't care much for marriage, but I always saw it as the couple's public display of confidence in the solidity of their relationship. They are sure that this person is the one for them, and are not afraid to show it. It's not all negatives.

Sareth wrote:
When viewing marriage and the sexual act as a social recognition of these bonds, in only one way does Monogamy come out on top. Inheritance. When determining inheritance law, unless it is a case of "oldest child takes it all, and every other offspring can suck it" having multiple offspring by multiple spouses complicates the hell out of things. But in terms of viewing marriage and sex as a contract, polygamy allows a greater range of contracts to be negotiated, tying together a larger network of people through sex.

Now, this all has demonstrated a rational process regarding sexual politics, and given polygamy a really rosy standing. Why, then, is Monogamy preferred in the dominant culture(s) of today? Two reasons. First, it's a hell of a lot simpler. And second, religion. I'm actually going to address these in the opposite order, because I want to deal with practicalities as my final note.
I wonder, how do you handle things in a polygamous household when you're the only person that doesn't want children and the rest do? You're part of the household so chances are you will have to provide for children that aren't yours. Alternatively you could have the one household where only two people reproduce and the collective pays for it simply because everyone fucks everyone. It hardly seems fair to me. Monogamy gets an edge on fairness when it comes to decision making because the people affected by it are the exact same amount of people in the relationship.

Polygamy is nice from a philosophical standpoint, much like socialism/communism. Monogamy inevitably is the more practical choice. Among a group of people there'll be inevitably one you will favour. Given the multiple obligations a well adjusted person will have in their life, getting to know that one person, working with them, learning their quirks and kinks is already a handful. It's just not worth it to complicate matters economically, emotionally and in terms of health for more sexual options. This is pretty much the last point you made, I realize.

Sareth wrote: Romans, while rather hedonistic, endorsed monogamy specifically because of the importance of marriage as a contract through which power and inheritance was negotiated. As such the Jewish culture found itself having to align with Roman concepts of marriage simply to survive politically.
I may be wrong, but didn't Romans restrict relations between men and women strictly to reproduction, meaning they practiced polyandry/pederasty exclusively? I don't remember monogamy being the norm in their culture, in fact they seemed to be pretty liberal so long as women were not involved.

Other than this, I don't really have any interest in discussing history.
Sareth wrote: When you have not just one person you can rely on and turn to for comfort, but two, or three, or five, the nurturing and support is all that much warmer and stronger. When one person in the relationship faces hard times (such as a job loss, cancer, or loss of a parent) there are so many more hands to pick her up and help her.
This makes it seem like you can only count on spouses (not friends nor family) for comfort... Which makes me think, with that many partners, your life becomes centered in the network, and you can alienate friends as a result because they are lower in the scale of priorities.
Precursor of wall-o-text post avalanches.
User avatar
mindstalk
Typo-Seeking Missile
Posts: 916
Joined: November 9th, 2007, 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by mindstalk »

I may be wrong, but didn't Romans restrict relations between men and women strictly to reproduction, meaning they practiced polyandry/pederasty exclusively? I don't remember monogamy being the norm in their culture, in fact they seemed to be pretty liberal so long as women were not involved.
You're wrong. It'd be more accurate applied to the Athenians, though i don't know what the word polyandry is doing there. Both cultures were monogamous in having only single wives, and wealthy Athenians kept their women in the homes. Of course, there were slaves for the men, and poorer people can't afford to lock up their women. Plus FWIW a play like Lysistrata has women speaking up collectively.

Oddly, given the usual stereotype, it's Judaism and early Christianity that were polygamous ("a bishop should have no more than one wife"), not to mention Islam, and the Mediterranean pagan cultures that were formally monogamous.

I could disagree with a lot of the rest of your post, but I'll leave it as "that's your opinion which you're overgeneralizing".
User avatar
Nell
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 308
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 7:59 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Nell »

Acknowledged and expected.
Precursor of wall-o-text post avalanches.
Post Reply