Polygamy or Monogamy?
Polygamy
5.4% (20)
5.4% (20)
Monogamy
43.5% (162)
43.5% (162)
Both, depends on the situation
40.6% (151)
40.6% (151)
Neither, LOVE IS DEAD
9.7% (36)
9.7% (36)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Polygamy or Monogamy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

katsumoto03:

Plus I'd have the paranoia that the other two would like each other more than me and would leave me.

I'd have to admit, this would probably worry me as well. I guess because I really worry what my friends think of me. Extrapolate that to lovers and... yeah.

I have no problem with either. Polyagmy won't work for a lot of people, but for some it does, and the divorce rate shows monogamy doesn't work for a lot of people.

There's really nothing morally wrong I see with it if everyone is alright with each other.

I read an interesting article in New Scientist today about using the methods to classify animals on humans and what they came up with was fascinating, especially on the subject of human pairing.

To define what they found in a single sentence; "Humans are emotionally monogamous; but not sexually monogamous."

In other words, humans want to emotionally bond with one partner, but our biology demands that we sexually explore with others, which naturally causes clashes. But really, whatever works for the couple won't work for everyone, it's really up to them to decide what works, it can not be applied to all.

Polyamory = having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

well put. ive seen it work and ive seen it fail. all depends on how jealous people are and the rules they have, and how honest they are

Polygamy for my dreams and monogamy for the real world, seriously dealing with one person is trouble enough, more then that would just be insane.

Both polygamy and monogamy works in some cases. However I will stick to monogamy simply because getting one person is hard enough. Pleasing one person is enough work. I don't want to challenge myself more than I have to.

I'm all about the Monogamy but honestly? If I thought I could swing a Polygamous relationship and it was legal to do so, I think I just might give it a shot.

I don't really like either.

Can't we just play Monopoly?

I think it depends on the situation and the people involved. Personally I think I could deal with polygamy. If my partner wants to go screw someone else then I'd be fine with it though if it was an every other night basis then I think it'll become more of a friends with benefits kinda thing.

BrassButtons:

Considering how frowned upon polygamy is, how do you know there aren't people who are polygamist but who lie about it to avoid social stigma?

People always do this when I bring up a touchy issue and it drives me crazy. "Oh, how do you know that they arent a closet *insert X here*?" Because, I still have trust in people and have known most of them for a long time, with thier reactions to even "just" cheating ranging from "Hurt" to "Violent" to "HOLY SHIT! RUN!!!" in the case of my girlfriend.

So grown women are incapable of making their own decisions about the types of relationships they enter into?

No, they can. As I said, this is usually a "live-and-let-live" subject to me. The only 2 times, THE ONLY 2, is in the cases of pologamy and one night stands, which I view as sexist and demeaning to women.

So instead you treat our entire gender as a collective, ignoring what any individual woman wants if her desires go against what those others said?

Except that the amount of women I have seen against it is FAR greater than the amount of men against it. Ironically (?) enough, the same thing applies to the whole "No sex before marriage" movement. Plus, where it is going today is very well summed up in this quote from an article on CNN:

"Maureen Dowd's column, titled "She's Fit to Be Tied," looks at E.L James's "Fifty Shades of Grey," a trilogy of erotic, bondage-themed fiction. Dowd expressed surprise over the popularity of the books in which a 21-year-old innocent girl becomes a sexual "submissive" of a rich, powerful 27-year-old businessman.

While we're steeped in a so-called "war on women," Dowd wonders "why women are thronging to the story of an innocent who jumps into the arms of a Seattle sadist with a 'Red Room of Pain' full of chains, clamps, whips, canes, flogs and cuffs, falling in love to the soundtrack of the Police's 'King of Pain.'"

Dowd cites the remarkable success of the trilogy among Generation X women -- the contemporaries, allies and beneficiaries of the modern feminist movement. And yet, the narrative flies in the face of women's progress. For example, a contract that the girl signs with the man stipulates that "the Dominant may flog, spank, whip or corporally punish the Submissive as he sees fit, for purposes of discipline, for his own personal enjoyment or for any other reason, which he is not obliged to provide." If this is progress for women, what would regression look like?"

"[Frank] Bruni recoils at the idea of this. He writes, "You watch these scenes and other examples of the zeitgeist-y, early-20s heroines of 'Girls' engaging in, recoiling from, mulling and mourning sex, and you think: Gloria Steinem went to the barricades for this?""

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/opinion/bennett-modern-women/index.html?iref=allsearch

Hint: choosing how to treat people based on their gender, rather than dealing with them as individuals, is sexist.

I follow Chivalry and the Code of Gentlemanly behavior. Both say that you should treat women as an equal, human being. They also state that a man should go out of his way to help a women. If that bothers you, tough nuts. Most women at my school know about this, and yet I have more female friends then male friends...but one, AND ONLY ONE, girlfriend, and we both know that we want to marry someday. It will just have to wait until I am done with college.

Zachary Amaranth:

Assuming you believe you can only be faithful to one person, yes. But in life, we rarely serve only one master, so to speak.

I said it before and I will say it again. If Maccaws and Cranes, two BIRDS, can mate for life, I dont see why a human cant. And I am sure there are other animals that I am not thinking of that mate for life. I dont care if it is 3%, 2%, or .0000000000000001% of all animals. If at least one can do it, surely A human can.

BOOM headshot65:

People always do this when I bring up a touchy issue and it drives me crazy. "Oh, how do you know that they arent a closet *insert X here*?" Because, I still have trust in people and have known most of them for a long time, with thier reactions to even "just" cheating ranging from "Hurt" to "Violent" to "HOLY SHIT! RUN!!!" in the case of my girlfriend.

Fair enough. However, there are still a lot of people who aren't close friends of yours, whom you probably haven't discussed this issue with, and who wouldn't admit to being poly even if you did ask. Basically you saying that you don't know any polygamists outside of the internet tells us nothing, because there's no reason to suspect you've got an accurate sample of the population, and there is reason to suspect that many polygamists would keep quiet about it.

No, they can. As I said, this is usually a "live-and-let-live" subject to me. The only 2 times, THE ONLY 2, is in the cases of pologamy and one night stands, which I view as sexist and demeaning to women.

If women are capable of making our own decisions, then why does your "live-and-let-live" policy end if women choose polygamist relationships or one night stands? Why are we not allowed to choose those things?

Except that the amount of women I have seen against it is FAR greater than the amount of men against it.

Completely irrelevant. If a woman wants to be in a polygamist relationship or have a one night stand (and some women do--a friend of mine is poly, for example) then saying she shouldn't because its "demeaning to women" is sexist. You aren't treating her as an individual who has her own likes and dislikes, but as woman who must be treated a certain way because she possesses a pair of X chromosomes.

I follow Chivalry and the Code of Gentlemanly behavior. Both say that you should treat women as an equal, human being.

Except chivalry doesn't view women as equal, and neither do you. Observe:

They also state that a man should go out of his way to help a women.

This is sexist. If you are treating people differently based on gender, then you are sexist.

consenting adults can do what they want
if everyone is willing i see no reason that Polygamy cant work

It really depends on the people. When me and my wife started dating, and later then, married, we made a deal. If she wanted to see other people, all she would have to do is ask first. I personally, am more then happy to let her date and sleep with other people so long as i at least get to meet the guy. Or girl. If its a girl, i care even less. In fact, i encourage it.

I see no problem with an open relationship, or having several husbands or wives. If all parties are comfortable with it, i dont see a reason not to. The idea of "One true love" is a bit.... Childish. I dont mean that in a bad way. While Rachel is my true love, and i could never see myself without her, chances are somewhere on the planet theres 10 or 20 other women i could say that about too. (If i were to meet, and date them that is)

I also see no problem with wanting only one person for your entire life. If your happy with just one lover, then have just one lover. They might feel exactly the same way, or they might want something more.

In the end, it comes down to the people involved. I see nothing wrong with having a dozen wives, all catering to your sexual desires. I see nothing wrong with a woman having a harem of men. In the end, if everyone is happy, thats all that matters.

Dude, I get enough jealousy from one wife.

There is nothing I've read, anywhere (including a recent Q&A with a dude from a polygamist family in a polygamist culture), that suggests there will ever somehow be less jealousy from more wives (almost all of whom get replaced by a younger model).

The only way to not have serious jealousy problems is to either have them never meet each other or never know, and that's not polygamy, that's just cheating on several people.

I'll take my time and sort things out with just one person, thank you very much.

Either/or. I'm monogamous myself, but I have nothing against polygamy/polyandry.

As long as all people involved are consenting adults who are happy and on the same page with each other, then who is it hurting?

If consenting adults want to engage in polygamy, monogamy, or alien sex, it's none of my business.

anything can work. As long as the people involved trust each other. I have many friends who are poly and it works out well with them. They have their main partner and then they have their other partners. I know married people like that as well. If it works for them great. They know what they need/want. Conversely I know people who are like me who are very monogamous. Most of the ones I know are very jealous and possessive. I personally have tried the whole poly thing. It is really not for me. It caused too many problems and issues in my relationship. Or maybe it was just my particular partner. Everyone has something different that works for them. I don't really believe in love anymore but I do believe in passion. And I believe that's what happens is we get passionate about someone else. Passionate enough in some cases to marry the other person. Sometimes the passion dies sometimes not. But as long as people are willing to communicate with each other they can make just about anything work out.

What I don't understand is why polygamy is such a huge deal to people. It is just another form of a relationship. As long as it is with consenting adults why do others care so much?

Bigamy, polygamy and monogamy have one thing in common: one person too many.

Kevlar Eater:
Bigamy, polygamy and monogamy have one thing in common: one person too many.

Bigamy has 3 people, so that would leave 2.
Polygamy has n people where n > 2 and n is an integer, so we'd get n-1 people, which ranges from 2 to infinity.
Monogamy would then have one person.

That statement doesn't quite work out for any besides the last XD

To paraphrase Bender from the Futurama movie, "A Beast With a Billion Backs," that particular kind of love (the sticky romantic/sexual kind) is not meant to be shared freely, it's inherently jealous and exclusive.

I don't think Futurama was trying to make a serious point, but I agree in a way.

The fact that my wife only has a romantic attachment with me and only shares her naughty bits with me makes it more special. The fact that that feeling is mutual multiplies the special nature of it in such a way that I can't imagine being possible in a polygamous relationship. There's no way I could do it.

As another pop culture aside, one of the characters in The Wheel of Time book series encounters a polygamous culture and finds himself wondering, "I'm not sure if having more than one wife is every man's dream or every man's nightmare!" That pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter.

Wow. There are a lot of misconceptions and a lot of presumptions here. I suspect it's commonplace, since the entirety of western culture bases its relationship structures on the ones imposed by the Church.

First off, the institution of marriage isn't even what it was a century ago. My grandparents were cousins (in an age where uncle/niece pairings were also commonplace) and were arranged to be married by their respective families. When my grandmother married my grandfather, she couldn't own property. She couldn't vote. She had limited rights as a human being.

It was during the latter half of the twentieth century that marriages became something done for love (and the countless federal and state benefits) rather than an exchange of property from a woman's father to her husband, which corresponds to the second generation feminism movement (the one after the suffragettes). My parents, aunts and uncles got to choose their own respective partners, and married for love. This is also the first time that extramarital sex was regarded as acceptable behavior at all (though women were and are still sometimes shamed for being sluts or whores for their sexuality). It still remains a common presumption by people like BOOM headshot65 that sex is exclusively for reproduction, and that women are still obligative participants in both arenas.

Regarding the terminology:

Marital models:
Monogamy: Marriage between a man and a partner, as per Roman Christianity. Jews were polygynous until around 1000CE, but Christians took the practice of monogamy from the classical Romans. (Classical Romans also had gay marriage, but that's a different topic.)
Polygamy: Marriage involving multiple spouses, usually one of the first sex, and many of the second (as per a harem). In almost all cases in the world, this is practiced as:
Polygyny: Marriage of many wives (female) to a single husband, as practiced in Shariah law and amongst Fundamental Mormons, usually to the benefit of old, rich men and at the expense of young men in the same society (and continuing with the whole chattelization-of-women theme). Contrast to:
Polyandry: Marriage of many husbands (male) to a single wife. Doesn't happen much in human relationships, but elsewhere in nature such pairings can be common. Of course, since aren't many institutions outside human culture, there isn't institutionalized marriage outside human culture either.

Other models:
Monogamy: A committed and exclusive relationship between two individuals, though biologists note the difference between social, sexual and genetic monogamy. In Western culture, serial monogamy is the norm, since people change as they age, their compatibility with their partners also changes, and hence we break up with old partners and find new ones. Social monogamy is typical of animals that presumably mate for life. That is to say, such creatures cohabitate with a single partner, but all such species have been observed to be sexually non-exclusive (that is to say, take partners out in the field). Sorry, wolf, crane and macaw enthusiasts.
Polyamory: A non-marital commitment to multiple relationships. Since Western society is resistant to models outside wedlock, this term is a bit of a catch-all that features at least one committed relationship and another thing, committed or otherwise. Amongst the poly community, polyamory refers to having at least two relationships that are more than sexual (in contrast to swinging or being in a single open, committed relationship)
Polyfidelity: What polygamy should be, and occasionally is, a group of mixed adults (men and women) that are openly sexual within the group, but whose relationships are limited when it comes to those outside the group, as appears in many of Heinlein's stories, and in groups who inspired or were inspired by his work, as per the Church of All Worlds. These reflect the behavior of small bands of humans during our hunter-gatherer epochs

As for the feasibility of polyamory, it is no more or less so than monogamy, though traditionalists (and Hollywood, the writers for which have always been uncomfortable with non-missionary relationships) would have you believe poly is only a fancy name for infidelity, or outright debauchery (usually with vampires, demons and murderesses, oh my!). We are taught to accept jealousy as a norm, but this is really about personal insecurity, and breaks down to issues of possession and inclusion. When the latter is fulfilled, the selfish nature of the former becomes evident.[1]

For many people, monogamy is safe, but it is no less temporary than polyamorous relationships. For many other people, monogamy is the default, and is expected, but is inadequate. And these people rely on confining relationships to seasonal flings, or on deception and infidelity. And for a select few who can negotiate a polyamorous relationship with their partners, they often learn that they're more to each other than a source for sex, and that they're not going to abandon each other for someone else, even a better lay. And they often find their relationships strengthened for it.

238U

[1] Disease tends to be the common battle-cry for those who can't handle others having more sex than they do, but sexually transmitted infections would be significantly less an issue if we responded to outbreaks with the same aggressiveness with which we combat seasonal influenzas. The HIV pandemic, for example, was caused just as much due to social malaise regarding containment as it was the tenacity of the bug. But if HIV was spread through flying parasites as per malaria or yellow fever, we'd be all over a cure.

BOOM headshot65:

Craorach:
I honestly don't know what to say in response to your second point.... other than what?!?

Yeah, I get that alot. I say that sex is sexist toward women, then people start breaking out the question marks. Basically, what I mean by that is feminist and women said in the 70's and 80's that they wanted to be treated as equals and not as sex objects (something modern feminist in the US seems hellbent on reversing, what with demanding "reproductive rights" and "Contraception" and other things that will degrade them back into sex objects), so I obliged them. The only reason I will ever have sex is because I want a child. Other than that, then I have become less than gentlemanly because I any other purpose of sex as being sexist toward women.

But here's the thing. "Wanting to have sex" isn't desire exclusive to men. Women can also want and enjoy sex, without being viewed as a 'sex object'. I think sometimes, for whatever reason, it's hard for some feminists to realize this, but it's true.

Speaking strictly from myself, I'm a one-woman man. Given my social ieptitude I'd be in paradise if I could just get one partner and I find it irritating as fuck that there are people who aren't satisfied with that. Not that I want to force my beliefs on them mind you, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't still piss me off.

I say love is a construct of various socio-religious ideals. Not dead, just not natural. Jealousy over sex is just the product of socio-religious brainwashing. I say we ditch marriage as a government-endorsed institution. "End special rights for the co-dependent" would be the bill title. Marriage should be just a quaint, optional religious pairing.

...as for what works in our current climate, basically what U-238 said.

BOOM headshot65:

Craorach:

But if everyone involved is happy with it, it can hardly be called infidelity can it.

Lets be honest...how many people would BE happy in a pologamous relationship. Because I have only met like 3 that would be (and they were all on the internet), while I have met many, MANY more that would dislike it to holding the same view as me.

People's relationships are ultimately nobody's business but the consenting adults involved.

Usually I am that way, but this is one of the only ones where my "live-and-let-live" ideals fall apart. Why? Because generally, it is a man with multiple wives, thus invoking my "Sex is sexist toward women." responce. If you want to be gay? Fine, whatever. Sex out of wedlock? So long as you are married in all but name, whatever. The only things relationship-wise I REALLY get mad over are one-night stands and pologamy.

You get angry over one night stands? If two people want to have sex then why shouldn't they? :S Also just because polygamy (not pologamy which is a complex form of mint folding) is currently worldwide biased towards males doesn't mean it can't work the other way if the people involved can set aside their cultural prejudices. I know personally I couldn't get past my own jealousy in a relationship like that but if people can then good for them. I say go for it. Sex carries exactly the amount of significance you personally attach to it and no more. As long as your honest about it one night stands and polygamy are fine.

What happens between consenting adults is no-one else's business.

I've personally never known anyone in a polyamorous relationship, but I am perfectly prepared to believe it can work. I imagine it wouldn't be easy, but not impossible.

I have known several couples in successfully open relationships, however. Honestly, before encountering them I was just as sceptical about the concept as many others are, but one couple in particular is one of the most committed, strong relationships I've seen. I also know a number of couples who have threesomes with no emotional difficulty.

Actually, I'm technically in an open relationship myself. I say "technically" because my partner and I very rarely take advantage of it. For us it's pretty tame- it's never really gone further than kissing someone on a night out (with full knowledge and permission from each other beforehand), and it's more about the thrill of the chase, as it were, than any emotional need to be with other people. One the few occasions we have indulged in the openness, it's been great fun and actually brought us closer together.

I think there's a whole range of relationship possibilities out there beyond monogamy that a lot of people aren't aware of, and different things suit different people. I'm absolutely not trying to belittle monogamy at all, it's just as valid as any other form of relationship and almost certainly simpler than most.

The key is to make certain that all parties involved are genuinely on the same page and to lay out the rules before experimenting.

BOOM headshot65:

I said it before and I will say it again. If Maccaws and Cranes, two BIRDS, can mate for life, I dont see why a human cant. And I am sure there are other animals that I am not thinking of that mate for life. I dont care if it is 3%, 2%, or .0000000000000001% of all animals. If at least one can do it, surely A human can.

The first thing I'm going to point out is that this does not address what I said at all. If you want to talk fidelity in other species, that's fine. Just keep in mind this has nothing to do with my comment. My comment was not on whether fidelity was feasible or even possible, but whether or not polygamy indicates infidelity. It's really hard to be unfaithful to a partner who is involved in that same relationship. That's kinda like indicating sex is rape, because even if your partner consents it's still...Rape. Because ponies.

So, now that I've said that, if you really want to go there....

Why can't all people be homosexuals? If at least one can do it, surely they all can.

Different species have different requirements which impact their mating rituals. Their are species that kill their partner. Doesn't mean we should. There are animals who rape. Doesn't mean we should. There are animals that do all sorts of stuff that's not desirable. Holding up animal practices as a beacon is not exactly admirable, and it's at best a fairweather friend to your argument.

The failure of marriage and high infidelity rates should probably be a hint to you that trying to instill or force an institution of monogamy is not going to work. "Because birds do it" is in no way an indication of what humans can or should do.

Further, since you're talking "mating for life," do you really think nobody should see other people even after their spouse dies? That they should pine away, as many monogamous species do? I'm just curious as to how far you want to take this.

Revnak:
I desire a monogamous relationship. I just think that polygamy is a thing of the past at this point. Women no longer need men to live well, men no longer can or should measure their worth by their number of wives. The old reasons for the largely romanceless system are all gone. Monogamy is a very modern idea, and it suits the modern world and the situations that arise within it. There really is no valid reason to support polygamy anymore beyond the obvious just letting people do what they do, and that is a weak argument really.

Edit- I just saw that 50% of divorces thing show up, so I feel like putting that in my comment.

The percentage of marriages that ends in divorce is a meaningless statistic in the long run that is absolutely terrible to draw conclusions from. The number of divorces for every thousand marriages is a far better statistic.

And what about a woman with multiple husbands? And monogamy isn't really a very modern idea... monogamy goes back quite a while, likely even past Ancient Egypt (we're talking around 10,000 years here) where people lived in family units with one man and one woman.

I actually just had this discussion earlier on my IRC.

Personally, my lover (a woman, by the way) and I are of the opinion that pure monogamy, and by this I just mean one sexual and/or emotional partner, is bullshit. At least for us. Now, before you go ahead and call us a shit couple, you should realize that after four years of being with her, I love her more than anybody else, prefer her to everybody else, and fully expect to marry this girl within the next few years. Not only this, but she's also my best friend and a geeky girl who loves to play MMOs and other games with me. It was her who told me "Bitch, you're getting Guild Wars 2 and you're going to be playing it with me! >:O" (She's rather dominant.) At the end of the day, she's the one that I truly love and will want to be with forever and always and to raise a family with.

However, we both realize that no matter what, we'll never be able to fully fill each others' needs. She's going to have needs and wants that are simply impossible for me to accomplish and I'm going to have needs and wants that she can't fulfill either. To constantly demand the emotional and physical attention of one person at all times is too much for us to do and since we're both bisexual, we also have needs that the opposite gender cannot satisfy. I can't tell you how many times I've heard my lover say, "I love you, baby, but I really need a woman right now." She also fully realizes that my attraction to males is something she, as a woman, will never be able to achieve. Not to mention, sometimes we see someone of the opposite gender that we DO want to sleep with. It's really funny to hear your lover say, "Hey, baby. Look at the ass on that woman. You should tap that." or, in my case, me telling her she should go after a hot guy that she likes.

As a result of this, the two of us are open to each other's wants and needs. She's an open book to me and I to her. It doesn't matter that she tells me that she has needs I can't fulfill. Just telling me openly about her wants or me telling her has brought us closer as a couple in the past year than it has the three years before this. The kind of mentality that comes with rejecting monogamy is one that opens up all kinds of possibilities and widens your mind. It's made us happier together. And you can sure as hell bet that even when we're married and have children, we'll still be this open, still be willing to fuck whoever we want regardless of whether it's a one-night stand or, hell, even more of a long-term thing. We'd be more than happy to have other adults living with us.

Of course, I realize that this sort of situation is not something that many other can accomplish. It takes a certain kind of couple to pull it off. We're both not jealous at all. If I see a guy hit on my lover, I don't feel a single twinge of jealousy if she's paying attention to him, and I know that she doesn't feel a single twinge of jealousy when a girl hits on me. The only time we'll ever take issue is if the other person's a creeper/seems harmful.

Nor am I saying that our kind of relationship is even the ideal one. It's simply the best one for us. Monogamy is the ideal for others, and that's perfectly reasonable. I don't hate on monogamy itself and I'll never hate on anyone who only wants to be monogamous. That's perfectly fine, too.

To end my post, I'll say that at the end of the day I'll always want to be with her and she'll always want to be with me, but to demand all of the attention, emotionally and physically, from one person is too much and has claimed many, many relationships before now, and that we, as a couple, have never been happier in our relationship until we decided to keep it open, yet purely for one another.

Alar:

Revnak:
I desire a monogamous relationship. I just think that polygamy is a thing of the past at this point. Women no longer need men to live well, men no longer can or should measure their worth by their number of wives. The old reasons for the largely romanceless system are all gone. Monogamy is a very modern idea, and it suits the modern world and the situations that arise within it. There really is no valid reason to support polygamy anymore beyond the obvious just letting people do what they do, and that is a weak argument really.

Edit- I just saw that 50% of divorces thing show up, so I feel like putting that in my comment.

The percentage of marriages that ends in divorce is a meaningless statistic in the long run that is absolutely terrible to draw conclusions from. The number of divorces for every thousand marriages is a far better statistic.

And what about a woman with multiple husbands? And monogamy isn't really a very modern idea... monogamy goes back quite a while, likely even past Ancient Egypt (we're talking around 10,000 years here) where people lived in family units with one man and one woman.

Monogamy is a farming thing at earliest, so I'm not really surprised it existed there, but our current conception of it is anything but ancient. The nuclear family and romantic monogamy is largely modern inventions that exist to suit a very modern world, where raising a small number of children with maximum degrees of education is the goal. Polygyny doesn't work as having multiple husbands limits mobility. The more people involved in the relationship, the harder it is to move when necessary. Other issues I suppose involve jealousy and competition. On the whole, if any form of polygamy would suit the modern world, it would be polygyny, but I don't see many people advocating that. It would work as population control though, not that it would ever become the accepted method of doing things.

From a strictly biological point of view a polygamous or monogamous relationship would both work (with the polygamous option being preferred depending on conditions). Now whether it would work on a more social scale (the polygamous relationship), I'd be doubtful. The truth is women are no longer required to marry in the sense, that they can perfectly well support themselves. In addition its is against the norm to have a polygamous relationship so I think members in it would be hesitant to start or soon start feeling the effects of societal pressure.

Revnak:

Alar:

Revnak:
I desire a monogamous relationship. I just think that polygamy is a thing of the past at this point. Women no longer need men to live well, men no longer can or should measure their worth by their number of wives. The old reasons for the largely romanceless system are all gone. Monogamy is a very modern idea, and it suits the modern world and the situations that arise within it. There really is no valid reason to support polygamy anymore beyond the obvious just letting people do what they do, and that is a weak argument really.

Edit- I just saw that 50% of divorces thing show up, so I feel like putting that in my comment.

The percentage of marriages that ends in divorce is a meaningless statistic in the long run that is absolutely terrible to draw conclusions from. The number of divorces for every thousand marriages is a far better statistic.

And what about a woman with multiple husbands? And monogamy isn't really a very modern idea... monogamy goes back quite a while, likely even past Ancient Egypt (we're talking around 10,000 years here) where people lived in family units with one man and one woman.

Monogamy is a farming thing at earliest, so I'm not really surprised it existed there, but our current conception of it is anything but ancient. The nuclear family and romantic monogamy is largely modern inventions that exist to suit a very modern world, where raising a small number of children with maximum degrees of education is the goal. Polygyny doesn't work as having multiple husbands limits mobility. The more people involved in the relationship, the harder it is to move when necessary. Other issues I suppose involve jealousy and competition. On the whole, if any form of polygamy would suit the modern world, it would be polygyny, but I don't see many people advocating that. It would work as population control though, not that it would ever become the accepted method of doing things.

I could be wrong in this, but I'm fairly certain the main goal for most modern polygamous groups (outside of Mormonism) is not to have and raise children. It just kind of... ends up that way in a romantic and sexual way, with friendship mixed in as well. It's entirely possible one or more of the people may wish to have a child in that group, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the end-goal for all of them. In that way, I feel that this kind of polygamy is a more modern concept, being that it more-or-less ignores the reproduction part of human relationships and concentrates on intimacy, romance, friendship, and sex.

AngelOfBlueRoses:
The only time we'll ever take issue is if the other person's a creeper/seems harmful.

I've noticed that's the kind of response that I tend to have with my partners, that when they're connecting with someone, whether it be socially, romantically or regarding a common hobby, I'll protectively want to sniff out this new blood and make sure he/she's not parasitic, but am not worried in least that I'm going to be replaced or neglected.

Of course, as an introvert, and one who's clinically depressed, I tend to like larger-than-usual swaths of time alone doing my own thing, and I get worn out without a couple of days a week where I get to recharge in solitude (with no-one but my cat for company). Interestingly, this makes me a good candidate for social monogamy, though I tend to be polyamorous by nature.

canadamus_prime:
Speaking strictly from myself, I'm a one-woman man. Given my social ineptitude I'd be in paradise if I could just get one partner and I find it irritating as fuck that there are people who aren't satisfied with that. Not that I want to force my beliefs on them mind you, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't still piss me off.

It's a common instinct amongst males to want to play the field, but not all men are like that, and most will shift between exploring and nesting during different periods in their lives, so by all means, keep looking.

The tricky part is, of course, finding someone who is going to be naturally satisfied with you and only you (and vice versa). Most people are just not that compatible with those around them, and so most monogamous relationships are settling for what is available. Granted, there are perfect (or perfect enough) matches between couples, but they are far less common than relationships that are apparently or expectedly monogamous.

It's easy to infer your irritation is less about difficulty finding the right partner, and more with expecting those you've found to settle, when that's just not where they are.

Might be worth introspection.

238U

Alar:

Revnak:

Alar:

And what about a woman with multiple husbands? And monogamy isn't really a very modern idea... monogamy goes back quite a while, likely even past Ancient Egypt (we're talking around 10,000 years here) where people lived in family units with one man and one woman.

Monogamy is a farming thing at earliest, so I'm not really surprised it existed there, but our current conception of it is anything but ancient. The nuclear family and romantic monogamy is largely modern inventions that exist to suit a very modern world, where raising a small number of children with maximum degrees of education is the goal. Polygyny doesn't work as having multiple husbands limits mobility. The more people involved in the relationship, the harder it is to move when necessary. Other issues I suppose involve jealousy and competition. On the whole, if any form of polygamy would suit the modern world, it would be polygyny, but I don't see many people advocating that. It would work as population control though, not that it would ever become the accepted method of doing things.

I could be wrong in this, but I'm fairly certain the main goal for most modern polygamous groups (outside of Mormonism) is not to have and raise children. It just kind of... ends up that way in a romantic and sexual way, with friendship mixed in as well. It's entirely possible one or more of the people may wish to have a child in that group, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the end-goal for all of them. In that way, I feel that this kind of polygamy is a more modern concept, being that it more-or-less ignores the reproduction part of human relationships and concentrates on intimacy, romance, friendship, and sex.

When considering family structure we must consider the implications of that family structure on children. As for your saying that polygamy is more modern as it ignores the reproduction part of a relationship, I have three objections.
1. Fact: sex makes babies. More sex makes more babies. Adding more partners to a relationship will always result in a greater possibility for babies to be produced by said relationship.
2. Since when? Polygamy is only associated with limiting population as an end goal through polygyny, which is absurdly rare. There is no greater dissociation of child-rearing with polygamy than with monogamy, in fact the opposite is quite true as polygamists have a whole lot of minority groups that prefer it specifically because of the greater number of children that can be raised within it.
3. Why is focusing on child-rearing a bad thing? Certainly raising more than a few children is anything but profitable in modern society, but what's the problem with just raising a few? How does that automatically mean that there is no sex or romance? Having a healthy, loving, romantic relationship is shown to be anything but a mutually exclusive goal to raising children. I suppose you specifically used the word modern, so I may just me looking too far into things here, though I still wouldn't say that raising children is unmodern, rather that not raising children isn't (note the double negative here).

Fuck! I may have been using the wrong terms as far as polyandry and polygyny are concerned. I'm going to stop using those terms for a while now.

Uriel-238:

AngelOfBlueRoses:
The only time we'll ever take issue is if the other person's a creeper/seems harmful.

I've noticed that's the kind of response that I tend to have with my partners, that when they're connecting with someone, whether it be socially, romantically or regarding a common hobby, I'll protectively want to sniff out this new blood and make sure he/she's not parasitic, but am not worried in least that I'm going to be replaced or neglected.

Of course, as an introvert, and one who's clinically depressed, I tend to like larger-than-usual swaths of time alone doing my own thing, and I get worn out without a couple of days a week where I get to recharge in solitude (with no-one but my cat for company). Interestingly, this makes me a good candidate for social monogamy, though I tend to be polyamorous by nature.

238U

That's definitely what I do every time my lover meets someone new. It's not out of jealousy at all and I'm also a fairly down-to-earth guy, but I'm still protective in the way that I don't want my darling to get hurt either. We're both pretty odd, aren't we?

And since we're speaking to one another, I had to go back and read the post that you made, and I'll definitely agree with you. Since deciding to become a polyamorous couple, we've been so much more open with one another with our wants, with our problems, and have been closer than ever. It was the best decision we've ever made in our relationship and I fail to see why others don't try and accomplish the same thing, but hey, as you say, monogamy is safe and not all couples can accomplish polyamory.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked