|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:24 pm
 |
|
|
 |
When I hear people debating monogamy and polyamory , or even different forms of polyamory for that matter (primary/secondary vs. a less structured approach), there seems to be a lot of idealism on all sides: "If you really loved someone, you would only want to be with them." "You can't own another person." "I don't like hierarchies in my relationships, because I believe people should be treated equally." Etc.
There also seems to be a lot of talk about social norms, social constructs, and social expectations.... But my question is what about the biological reality behind this all? What about the evolutionarily selected psychological basis for all these different drives that humans seem to have?
The more I learn about the biological basis for this all, the more the various ideals of monogamy and ethical polyamory seem to be just that: idealistic, and overly so. The reality of what humans are driven to do seems to be much, much nastier and far less ethically oriented than either of these ideals would have us believe.... And I am doubtful of arguments that we can overcome our biology. To me it seems that despite our well-developed brains, we are very much stuck in it still. If you look at the rate of cheating in monogamous relationships, established by various studies, there goes the argument that we can just force ourselves to abide by agreements that go against our basic biological drives.... And, well, polyamory is less well-documented through scientific studies, but I can tell you it's idealistic at best to pretend that people can simply stop being jealous and possessive just because they agree to do so. Hell, we can't even overcome our Stone-Age mindset and cooperate to solve things like global warming. We are still very much stuck in a mentality where we only identify with and cooperate with people who we view as our own immediate kin (perhaps "our nation"), and where we only respond to crises, not to long-term problems. This might have been good for hunter-gatherer bands, but it sucks for solving long-term global problems -- and idealism aside, we don't seem to be able to able to overcome our primate nature, perhaps to our own destruction.
The picture I am getting from reading about evolutionary psychology and the biology of sexual selection in humans is not exactly an idealistic one: Males of any species are driven to reproduce as many viable offspring as possible by drives selected by evolution. Two principal strategies for doing so seem to be sperm competition (producing lots of sperm and having sex with many females), and controlling access to mates (through possessive pair-bonds). Females have their own drives. They want to maximize the chance of being fertilized by males with good genes, but they also have more of an interest in their mates staying around to help them bring their offspring to a viable age. Their behavior (promiscuous vs. monogamous) influences the biology of the males and vice versa. The one defining characteristic that we can look at that can help understand whether a species is more promiscuous or more monogamous is testicle size (you need a larger one if there is lot of sperm competition). Chimpanzees, who are promiscuous have large testicles. Gorrillas, who form possessive polygynous mating bonds (closer to monogamy), have small testicles. Humans are somewhere in between. Wouldn't you guess it?
From most of what I am reading, we seem to have not only fairly well-devleoped drives for monogamous social mating bonds, but also fairly strong drives to cheat.... And if you look at a lot of "monogamous" species in the bird kingdom, there seems to be something quite analogous there too: There is actually a lot of cheating. Although there will still be one possessive male partner who helps raise the chicks, the female will stray quite a bit while he's not looking. So much for the idea of men being the unfaithful ones....
This is all a whole lot nastier than either the ideal of ethnical monogamy, or ethical polyamory, "open relationships," or whatever. The picture I am getting is that in nature, animals will act posessive of their partners, but at the same time will sneak off and cheat. I think this is true to some extent of humans as well. As far as I can tell, both of these drives, possessive jealousy, and promiscuity are just as biological and just as strong. I don't mean to cast a gloomy picture, but we're screwed if we do and screwed if we don't: If we try to have monogamous relationships, one or the other partner will end up frustrated and tempted to cheat, but if we attempt polyamory, people who claim not to be posessive or jealous, will in fact be so.... At least if they're not using polyamory to avoid any real emotional closeness in the first place.
Like I said, I don't want to be completely gloomy here. It seems like the best thing to do would be to acknowledge the reality of these atavistic drives and attempt to work with them in structuring our relationships, rather than simply denying them or repressing them. From my recent experience, I have found that attempting to repress these drives, rather than deal with them, out of some idealistic attitude can be very destructive. Few emotional drives like to be suppressed and forced to stay quiet.... If they can't come out openly, in some orderly way, they will come out some other way, in a much more irrational and chaotic manner.
So what do other people think about all this? Can we overcome biology, or are we stuck in it? What does the evidence say about how we as a species are, and how should this influence us in terms of what kind of relationships we attempt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:41 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:15 pm
|
|
|
|
Monogamous. One reason is because I dont understand how someone could have equal love for two people. There has to be a least a slight bias, if you will. Even if, on the percentage scale, it's just by one percent, there is more love there for one over the other.
I saw a special on maury, and if i hadn't have seen that, i would not have commented on this topic. For, before i did not understand poly. But to a degree i do now...but it's still really confusing.
Another reason is because of my religion. It's not because my religion is telling me "be with only one person, or else." No...it just believes in loving one person and spending the rest of your life with that person...liveing, learning, and loving. My religion? Christianity. smile
I do not really understand poly, so i cant start sceaming that it's horrable. I might be wrong in saying this, but if you think of it...if every person on earth was poly...wouldn't it get a little crazy? I mean, the whole "i'm with this person, and this person, and this person, etc." "omg! I'm with this person too!"...it's all confusing and chaotic. If you ask me. But maybe someone could care to explain a little bit for me so that i can understand more.
smile I love to learn! biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Ok, here's why poly works for me.
I'm bisexual. And I think because of that, I will never be happy with just one person. My current partner is also bi, and understands the need to have the best of everything. So we agreed to go poly, but it's not just "sleep with or date whoever you want" --both of us have to approve the new relationship. So far, it's worked pretty well. The only problem with it is finding other partners that are open to it also, because a lot of people will think we're "cheating" and that it's wrong, or they will want a monogamous relationship and want me to break it off with my partner.
Here's why I think poly is the way to go:
You only live once. If you and your partner can agree to an open relationship, it can teach you a lot about life in general, and can even strengthen your original relationship.
It's logical. Humans are biologically designed to procreate and as they do so, to diversify, genetically. This strengthens the gene pool. I'm not saying that you actually have to have babies with everyone, but that it is a fact of genetics that some diversification is inherent in our species. That's why "cheating" is a "problem" in the first place... it's a natural instinct that is socially taboo. Once that taboo goes, it will just be natural. Of course, monogamy is also encouraged by genetics, in favour of helping raise children and protecting the herd, but it exists within a spectrum of tendencies towards monoamorous behaviour, or polyamorous behaviour. Did you catch the different term I used there? Monogamy is about joining with one other; Polyamory is about loving more than one person. It is possible to be both. You can be married to one person and still love other people, but just not express it. Thus, acknowledging that people have tendencies towards both behaviours can be a step towards strengthening a purely monogamous relationship.
Polyamory is about trust and faith. By agreeing to a poly relationship with someone, you are basically giving them ultimate faith that they will come back to you, even after/while being with someone else. It is a wonderful gift partners can give each other, and I think it is a sign of true love to be able to say "I will love you no matter who else you love".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- Crew
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Dead Ed Monogamy = devotion. So, I like it better.
And I am aware how odd, to someone that isn't aware this is a guys mule that must sound. stare |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:38 am
|
|
|
|
I'm both bisexual and monogamous, so it's certainly possible. It's not that I have anything against polyamory... In fact, I think it would probably be easier if I could handle it. But I can't. I throw myself fully into my romantic loves, which doesn't leave room for another lover in my life. I'm too passionate for that; I'm not sure I could handle the intensity of loving two people like that.
And if I wasn't head-over-heels for them, any sexual encounters we had would feel empty. Surface-fun, maybe, but I'm not in it for that so much anymore. Not now that I know what it's like to have more than that. I'd go for a threesome, maybe, if my lover really wanted to try one and we found someone we both wouldn't mind sleeping with, but in the end... I only want them. I do want to make that commitment to them, and I like it in return. I like to be with one person who's only with me... Just because that's how I roll, I suppose.
There's some insecurity in there, though, well, not so much anymore. I think it's partially that I want to spend all my time with him, since we don't get to see each other that often. I would get jealous if he had a lover he got to see more often, and slightly irked if he took the time to see them over me. Does that make me greedy? Maybe. I can live with that.
The funny thing is, I'm incredibly cued-in to my instincts. I'm one of the most primal people I know, yet... I don't have any real urge to be with people other than him. Do I sometimes wonder about someone, about what they'd be like? Yeah. Is it pressing at all, anything more than idle speculation? No. I don't need to force myself to be monogamous in the slightest. I'm inclined towards it, by virtue of gods-know-what. Society, maybe, though it's failed on almost every other count. Who knows? Maybe I came as a genetic mutant, without that particular biological drive. ::shrugs:: Whatever the case... this is easy for me, and I like it. I doubt I'll ever go over to polyamory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
