Humans Aren't Supposed To Be Monogamists

[Logica Humano]

(04-01-2013 01:02 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 12:47 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  This.

There is one issue I have with those who support polygamist marriage though. I foresee difficult issues in making polygamist marriage legally binding, such as inheritance, power of attorney, custody, etc. I am in full support, however, of those who either choose to live with each other and don't get married, open marriages, or bachelors/bachelorettes with several partners.

I've know quite a few polygamy based relationships and few have lasted. The undoing seems to be jealousy -- No matter how hard they try the jealousy thing seemed to be end game for them. I've known two that are successful with an awesome dynamic. But both have rules respecting privacy and maintain somewhat separate living spaces (one owns adjoining condos and the other lives in a duplex). Both are triads and are married to one of the partners -- "one couple" owns the condo and the other owns the other condo and they do make all medical decisions together, But those are the exceptions not the rule...

There are some with more devil-may-care attitude toward relationships but they more or less flit around until they find the next great thing in their lives.


I see similar situations involving "open marriages" too. But as far as property rights or legalities, the person outside the "marriage" is left out of those...They take more a don't ask, don't tell attitude.

None of this is from my own personal experience (my husband and I don't swing that way) but we do many people who do (you could say our friends are eclectic and eccentric) but more from personal and very direct observations.

I understand where you are coming from, but you seem to be assuming that these scenarios do not include the consent of all parties involved. I am under the assumption that all parties are aware of all expected consequences.

[Momsurroundedbyboys]

(04-01-2013 01:11 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 01:02 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I've know quite a few polygamy based relationships and few have lasted. The undoing seems to be jealousy -- No matter how hard they try the jealousy thing seemed to be end game for them. I've known two that are successful with an awesome dynamic. But both have rules respecting privacy and maintain somewhat separate living spaces (one owns adjoining condos and the other lives in a duplex). Both are triads and are married to one of the partners -- "one couple" owns the condo and the other owns the other condo and they do make all medical decisions together, But those are the exceptions not the rule...

There are some with more devil-may-care attitude toward relationships but they more or less flit around until they find the next great thing in their lives.


I see similar situations involving "open marriages" too. But as far as property rights or legalities, the person outside the "marriage" is left out of those...They take more a don't ask, don't tell attitude.

None of this is from my own personal experience (my husband and I don't swing that way) but we do many people who do (you could say our friends are eclectic and eccentric) but more from personal and very direct observations.

I understand where you are coming from, but you seem to be assuming that these scenarios do not include the consent of all parties involved. I am under the assumption that all parties are aware of all expected consequences.

Oh no!!! These are fully done with complete consent. The "open marriages" are more limited consent (there is consent that one or both may step outside the marriage) but they rarely share details. That's what I meant by 'don't ask, don't tell'.

Having said that with the poly relationships the jealousy 'thing' is really a button issue even with eyes wide open and full consent, what i've seen happen is that the relationship dynamic suffered because they just didn't anticipate feeling that way and it became impossible to reconcile.

But in every situation (and there are others I do know a great deal about) consent is paramount from outset. While all relationships require good communication, those involved in 'alternative' (and those go beyond poly and open marriages) require a higher level of communication that isn't normally needed in "traditional" relationships.

[Vera]

Are you using monogamous in the sense of having only one sexual partner during their lifetime or only one at any one time? Because they're kinda different, at least to me. Either way, what I think people have evolved to be, is incredibly more diverse when it comes to behaviour and traits than any other species, so such generalisations are not always possible.

Also, a bit of a tangent, but I find this very interesting.

"The findings indicate that, even in birds, the drive to find a mate is far more complicated than simply the need to reproduce.
"A pair-bond in socially monogamous species represents a cooperative partnership that may give advantages for survival," said Dr Elie. "Finding a social partner, whatever its sex, could be a priority."

[Idlecuriosity]

(03-01-2013 10:27 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  Monogamy is what much of the human species has evolved to.

What makes you say that ?
Monogamy is more a result of religious, social and cultural conditioning rather than evolution. You've no idea whether primitive man was going around screwing every female he could lay his hands on or not. Most modern men still would if they could get away with it !

[Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day]

Let me get this straight, I was referring to long-term relationships when I said monogamy.
My bad.

[Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day]

(03-01-2013 10:27 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  Monogamy is what much of the human species has evolved to.

Yes, sex is good for survival, but so is making sure the young survive themselves. Evolution has shown that monogamy can be effective in assuring this happens.

Many other species besides human have monogamous relationships as well.

This doesn't mean everyone feels this way or has this urge, it's just a product of evolution for some.

The same could be said that humans aren't made to want kids (my sister and her husband don't) or we aren't made to be social creatures at all (some hermatize into mountain dwelling). We aren't made to be any of these things. They are just results for some.

Monogamy is an outcome, not a rule. We aren't supposed to be anything, we just are.

The while point of survival is to reproduce, so why not have as much sex as you can in order to create offspring?
Monogamy is a result of society.

[Vera]

(04-01-2013 07:19 AM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote:  Monogamy is a result of society.

As is our survival.

[earmuffs]

Considering there are 7billion people on this planet it's a bit shit to generalize everyone under the same category.

People are different.
Take this forum for example, Girly has been with his wife since high school (I'm pretty sure it's girly, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Monogamy works for him. We have members that have expressed their desire for polygamous relations. Polygamy could work for him.
People get divorced. Some marry for a year and get divorced. Some get divorced after decades of marriage.
Some people get married, get divorced and never marry again while others may have many husbands/wives of their life time..

People are different.

[bemore]

Ludacris says yes




I think its different courses for different horses.

When I was a younger I was like a dog with two dicks, I loved it and couldnt get enough of many different casual sex partners. However with all of my GFs in the past someone comes along who you cant get enough of tapping and as your feelings/attachements grow you want no one else tapping them. So if its reciprocated normally a relationship can form. So I have allways stuck to my word when forming a relationship that I will never cheat.

(sods law dictates that when this promise is made, you will have ridiculous amounts of offers off of extremely fine ladies)

On the whole though I think monogamy occurs possibly more in hostile enviroments in nature (as in enviroment)... I could be wrong though

[Vera]

(04-01-2013 08:16 AM)bemore Wrote:  When I was a younger I was like a dog with two dicks,

Sorry, Bob, but this is all I could think of when reading your post. Also - tapping? Really?

And Muffs is right (as am I) - people are way too diverse a species for such generalisations to apply.