POLL: Monogamy

Remove all ads!

Sorry, Capstone. Dolphins are one animal I have worked with that have sex, just for sex. Dolphins are a very sensuous animal, in fact, one place I worked, a female trainer never went into the water with them when they were ovulating. Seriously, male dolphins will try to breed with just about anything.
Rallymama, while the female lions are perfectly capable of defending themselves, its the mere prescence of the male lions in the pride. Each pride has a certain territory it will control. When males are of a certain age, they usually leave in small groups of four males or so. They search for a pride of their own that they can take over by challenging the males in that pride.
By providing enough food on a hunt for the males, the male lions will stay with the pride. The females have a vested interest in keeping the males around, because the healthiest and strongest males will pass on their genes to the females offspring, which will be healthier and reproduce. The prescence of a strong male leader adds a bit of protection to the herd.

 

Recent research by scientists I'd like to kiss has demonstrated that a man's sperm is more vigourous and his sperm count higher when he knows his partner has other lovers. If this is true (I'm always suspicious of science that supports my own biases) then we evolved in a certainly polyandrous and probably polygamist social structure. Therefore, it's natural for a woman to have multiple husbands, and I've got a list right here...

Slightly more seriously, I think that as individuals we are probably polygamous and polyandrous but that certain pairings are naturally exclusive. Sometimes you just meet someone who makes you stop noticing anyone else. I never would have believed this until I met my husband, but it's true. If you *don't* feel that way about your partner, though, forcing yourself to be monogamous seems pretty pointless to me.

My uncle was in a group marriage for nearly 30 years and it looked like a lot of fun to me. The kids seem to have benefited - they had a three-income family and a stay-at-home mom and they turned out very well. The women said it was perfect because any more than 1/3 of a husband was too much work. But when the kids were grown up they kicked him out. They decided they had more fun without him.

 

I've seen research that indicates a female will find a good provider, and then go out and find the strongest male to mate with. That strong male may be the best biological choice, but not the best social choice. This has been proved in the animal kingdom with some species.

Polygamy may have its place in certain circumstances, but overall, it does not fit with our society. We believe in romantic love and commitment, and polygamy, to my mind, does not fulfill either of those requirements. Of course, society is changing -- commitment is nearly a dirty word in some circles.

@ Rallymama -- right or wrong, for a long time our society would not let a woman be a part of it unless she had a male provider. Fortunately, that has changed, but there are still some societies, and some segments of our own, that socially restrict the economic opportunities of females. So in a societal sense, as annoying as it may be, a woman "needs" a male provider. It sucks, I know, but we still have a long way to go as a species before that "provider" mindset is broken.

 

OK all this talk about who needs a provider etc...I gotta toss this out: I remember reading somewhere that a mans life expectancy is greatly improved by having a long term relationship with a woman regardless of the quality of the relationship. Whereas a womans life expectancy is lowered when she maintains an unsatisfactory relationship with a man.

So, who is helping out who????

 

"Recent research by scientists I'd like to kiss has demonstrated that a man's sperm is more vigourous and his sperm count higher when he knows his partner has other lovers."

Not so much that, as the sperm will evolve like that. The fastest one (that's still viable) wins, just by the very nature of the mechanism.

Right now, monogamy exists to reduce infection rates. Veneral diseases. Reduce the spread of veneral diseases. There are some veneral diseases (HPV, for example) that can spread by simple skin contact.

But, what if science (by science, I'm talking about biogenetics and medicine) devise a way to destroy disease causing pathogens? What if it worked like Star Trek, and your physician had a virus created that destroyed only the target pathogen, and then deactivated itself (in a manner that it was either phagoticized or excreted)? After 10 or 20 years of just utterly wiping out pathogens, they just wouldn't exist anymore, because they wouldn't get the chance to produce and spread. Extinct.

Would monogamy still exist?

What if it wasn't a health issue anymore? And what if women could (genetically) have their estrus cycle activated and deactivated at will? Or, what if men could do the same thing to their sperm (prevent maturation)?

What if sex was just an experience? You could choose to mate, and have babies. But you had to make that choice. You had to choose yes or no, and if the default was no (meaning men and women alike had to apply to have their reproductive organs "turned on"), then it becomes a matter of actually having to choose yes.

Would anyone even care about monogamy anymore? Would there still be sexual tension at your place of employment? Would we still have nearly as many wars and rapes and murders?

 

EJ, you would still have rapes because rape is a crime about power and control, not about sexual satisfaction. Monogamy exists as a social device that is beyond disease prevention. It ensures that a man does not invest resources on offspring that is not his (well, it doesn't ensure that, but you get my point). Emotions are also deeply tied in here. Many (notice I didn't say all) people like the idea of having one person in their lives, a person who will care for them and emotionally support them. Sure, the thoughyt of running around and having multiple partners sounds like fun, but the benefits of long term commitment outweigh that fun -- at least to some people. Building a future and all that good stuff is important to these kinds of people.

Of course, there are others who will sleep with anyone, and some of them can build pretty good lives for themselves as well (is that all you wanted, Mr President? I need to go clean this dress.) but I think the majority of people prefer the benefits of monogamous relationships, though some succumb to temptation.

@Scarampalla, LOL! You're right, of course, and it looks like biologically speaking, men are the real winners, no question. Please don't think I believe that woman either SHOULD be dependant on men, or that I think that is the natural, God-Given way of things. Any such dependence is purely a societal construct.

[ February 26, 2003, 19:00: Message edited by: Depaara ]

 

"but the benefits of long term commitment outweigh that fun -- at least to some people."

That's my whole point, right there.

Why not have "long term commitments" to 5 different women. And they each have "long term commitments" to 5 different men.

 

Either. In some cases it's natural and in other cases it's a moral choice regardless of the configuration of mono/poli here and this may change. There's also a bunch of 'serial monogamists' who change often but are with one person at a time. Some people also don't include one-wifers who have long-term side-lovers or plenty of short-term ones (more than just an 'adventure') into poligamists.

 

@Depaara: I'm enough of a realist to recognize the truth you point out in women's societal role through history. However, I still have to wonder if this is a NATURAL thing or a societal contrivance forced upon women by men for reasons that only those possessing a Y-chromosome can grasp.

 

Heh. I have to say this. If women are the equal of men and their dependence on men is purely a societal construct, how the heck did that society get constructed in the first place?

Not that I'm saying women are below men, but -if- it's purely a societal construct, then men must have some advantage over women to have been able to construct such a society.

In regards to the animal issue, most males have sex purely for pleasure. However, the female will only have sex when it is possible for her to conceive a baby -- hence sex for procreation. If I understand Elios' comments about ovulation correctly, it is not any different for dolphins.

Also, some species are naturally monogamous and others are not. For example, eagles mate for life. (There are many others, but I'm drawing blanks at the moment. I'm sure a properly worded internet search will turn up more. Educate yourself.)

 

I guess that I have a different definition of "commitment" than you do, EJ! Mine includes the idea of exclusivity -- that is, to one person, and no others.

As for female's roles, I guess that comes back to the cave man ideas -- the way things got this way is that men were physically able to enforce their wills on women, as men tend to be larger and stronger in this species. Not really a pleasant thought to think of something so morally reprehensible as a basis for modern societies, but there you are. That physical advantage lead many men to believe there was also a mental and moral advantage to the Y chromasome -- just look at any 17-19 century writing on the subject. In fact, one of my textbooks in University was entitled "Criminals, Idiots, Women and Children", and the pieces of literature illustrated that the 19th century idea was that those 4 categories of people were biologically unable to think rationally, and therefore needed "thinking" people (ie men) to help them and guide them. I don't like a lot of feminist theory, but I'm with them on refuting this sort of silliness.

 

I do not believe that either men or women are monogamous naturally.
Most men and women are monogamous societally. Not all. I'll cheerfully admit I'm not monogamous. The only time I would be is when I am trying to concieve a child, so that the father konws my baby is his baby as well.

As for how the current society developed, look at religion. It's easy to cow anyone by telling them their behavior will lead to eteranl torment. That trend started before Christianity even existed.

 

Sex for fun? Don't give a chimp a banana, they just use them to masturbate.

 

Ethics, laws and morals are a human "nature".. so in some parts yes, in other parts (muslims, mormons) no

 

Morgoth, Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for over 100 years. Those who do and claim to be Mormon are lying -- anyone caught practicing polygamy today is excommunicated. FYI.

 

Weird huh, as soon as moralists take control they force their morals on any other person in the country...

Like marrying mutiple people is actually ever hurting another person directly

 

Morgoth, I'm not sure what you are insinuating, so I'll do a two prong response, one that assumes the worst and one that assumes the best.

The Mormon church practiced polygamy in the mid 1800s. The rest of the US hated them for it, and passed laws outlawing the practice. For reasons that I won't go into here (long, complicated, divisive, and ultimately irrelevant) the church officially repudiated polygamy. If anything, Mormons were the ones forced on, not the other way around. Today, while there is a theological basis for not practicing polygamy at this time, it is more of a legal issue with the church -- polygamy is a crime as defined by the government (which Mormons most certainly do not control) and anyone who engages in it is in violation of the law. The Mormon church does not condone flagrant lawbreaking of any sort, and so excommunicates those who persist in so doing (some people --not just Mormons, mind you -- interpret Bible passages as exempting them from paying taxes. They, too are excommunicated from the church if they do not obey the law.)

Now, that last was assuming you meant Mormons were forcing their beliefs on others. If that is not what you meant, then I have this to say -- the majority should not feel ashamed to expect some social conformity from the rest of society. In most (but not all cases) polygamy tends to erode the status of women. Many sociologists will argue (more fluently than I) that polygamy does have a detrimental effect on societies. So, while no one is directly hurt, it can be argued that society is hurt by the practice, so that's why it is illegal.

 

It hurts a society that has been established on the principle of monogomy. Do you believe it hurts a society based on the principle of polygomy? Or in fact, that if our society was inately polygomous since the dawn of civilizations, that we would not have formed a functional society around these principles? Besides, you are thinking of male-dominated polygomy. Who says females can't have multiple "boyfriends". Had society been structured this way, gender equality might be a little closer to true equality than it is today.

What I'm saying is that you cannot generalize polygomy as a "bad" thing by its nature, only that today's society would be maleffected by it.

 

Depaara, I was saying that the majority was forcing its morals on the mormons.

and yet in the US (I´m now only picking on the US, because it has mormoncity) its legal to scream "Go burn some niggah monkeys!!!" and nooooo that doenst have any detrimental effect on society

[ March 07, 2003, 22:23: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Society, even today, (Or especially today, however you may think) has always liked to insinuate that if a man is in a relationship with multiple women, it's not as bad as a woman being in a relationship with multiple men. A woman who would dare to share her affection with more than one partner can expect to have any number of ready insults piled upon her. With men....I'm not saying it's thought of as right, but it's forgiven very easily. Even by the women themselves, most of the time. (We won't get into the rant about the kind of women that would stay with a man who would willingly cheat, hoping to 'change him.' Not that I know anyone like that. )
I still, however, have an issue with polygamy. I think that, if you're assuming that polygamy is an 'accepted' or 'natural' thing, then you run into the inate human response of 'jealousy.' It's programmed into us for some reason, isn't it? And sometimes it's not just jealousy---Extreme Jealousy? Suicidal jealousy? Murderous jealous? Try to explain to someone that killed himself/herself over a relationship that polygamy is normal. Or that it should be accepted. Just because sex is pleasurable doesn't mean you have to have it with everyone! And there are some people who feel that sex is more pleasurable if you're with someone who you love and are in a stable, healthy, trusting relationship with, because you trust them. And again, saying that you can feel sexual attraction for another person doesn't mean that you should act on it, or that not acting on it is unnatural. And for me, it's not as much an issue of morals (though the part of me that is still religious feels that it is) as it is an issue of those other human natures. You know, like love? Trust? Jealousy? (Again!)