Polygamy/Polyamory
-
The way the conversation read to me was Kasper noted how he saw these choices as Abrahamic in most cases.
which is a limitation yes, but then it seemed like you were pointing out how limited he was being, but then further restricted his observation by saying Arabic.
Which would seem to imply you hadn't either read his statement correctly, or that you yourself hold some limits that maybe you weren't aware of, or something else entirely like spell checker hijacked your word processor and interjected Arabic instead of Abrahamic.Since I know how much you like to point out when other people misspell and use poor grammar, and are just wrong, I knew that you would be thankful to be reminded that no ones perfect, we all make mistakes, we are forgiven and that we can all work on being better, with out sounding like we are constantly attacking each other.
-
"With Bees, the colony is all female. A male comes around only when the Queen needs to be fertilized"
Really, because that is not the information I got from the local bee organization when I took the scouts there for the annual honey harvest.
Male drones make honey, they come from unfertilized eggs.
But regardless then, in nature it is very difficult to find sexually active males with only one female. In fact I would guess that it would not be a sustainable system. The female would be getting laid all the time, the males would end up in homosexual behaviors and the procreation of the species would have a disadvantage. (I'm not referring to human behavior, but more like bonobos, dolphins, and other creatures which do have sex for pleasure and form group ties. )
-
If we're interested in the scientific data as to how nature supports monogamy or not, there are twenty animals out of all the known species (other than humans) that mate for life:
Gibbon apes, wolves, termites, coyotes, barn owls, beavers, bald eagles, golden eagles, condors, swans, brolga cranes, French angel fish, sandhill cranes, pigeons, prions, red-tailed hawks, anglerfish, ospreys, prairie voles, black vultures.
So if one where one of those "I learn from nature" types, then along with killing and eating for survival, one would learn that monogamy is not a given but an exception.
*addendum: Even among the above listed "faithful" species, cheating is common.
-
A good read is the 3rd Chapter in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, where this quote comes from:
"
Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but a single outlet. My love, my baby. No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable. Their world didn't allow them to take things easily, didn't allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy. What with mothers and lovers, what with the prohibitions they were not conditioned to obey, what with the temptations and the lonely remorses, what with all the diseases and the endless isolating pain, what with the uncertainties and the poverty–they were forced to feel strongly. And feeling strongly (and strongly, what was more, in solitude, in hopelessly individual isolation), how could they be stable?
" -
@Frater Horus said
"I see monogamy as a lie. Nothing wrong with it as far as you dont believe it."
I think that may be how it appears in todays society.
Where things such as marriage have become a joke,
With Men constantly tearing asunder what has been ordained before God.
Another way we have drugged children with fairy tales,
That later the parent might smirk, and say
"That is just a story I told you when you were young... "Though, let us also be clear: polyamorous does not mean promiscuous
-
@Frater Horus said
"I see monogamy as a lie. Nothing wrong with it as far as you dont believe it."
I'm very progressive and believe that polyamory, threesomes, any novelty regarding human relationships is adventurous - but when it comes to one on one - maybe I am old fashioned but i believe there is something divine as well regarding an extended romantic union.
Consider, Nuit and Hadit dont seem to require any other bed fellows at the party
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I feel the attraction of monogamy is the stability : this is a person who is going to be with you the rest of your life. "We are in this together""
That's the theory, of course
Statistically, we know that this works no more than half the time. (And that's just quantity, not quality.)And, in theory, I see no way to distinguish "We two are in this together" from (for example) "We three are in this together." The only difference evident to me is the greater attention and effort required to maintain the more complex interrelationships. With three people, you have three separate relationships instead of one; with five people, you have 10 separate relationships. This requires a lot more work and attention. - And it is as likely that the greater attention and work would actually give a better result than the "take it for granted, don't actively work on it" pattern that that majority of two-person relationships fall into.
"
@Angel of Death said
" Bees, ants, and wasps are all I have come across, but from what I understand those males are drones, more like eunuchs.
"With Bees, the colony is all female. A male comes around only when the Queen needs to be fertilized."
Sounds like a plan.
I just gave a Temple of Thelema workshop, one topic of which was "care and feeding of the vagina." One of the fascinating biological details I included is that, although men and women both have strong chemical cocktails of dopamine, opioids, and oxytocin released into their brains in the arousal-through-climax cycle, the distribution of these chemicals is different in men and women. For example, after orgasm, men's dopamine levels drop off rapidly, whereas women's dopamine levels continue to rise. Both sexes have strong oxytocin release, but women get more of it.
The net effect is (as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration), men are "one peak wonders" and women are "distance runners." The most natural consequence of this mix is that (1) men are done for the moment and may tend to fall asleep, and (2) women are wired to keep going, socially and communicatively engage, and exhibit behaviors that move toward having another orgasm. On a pure biologically functioning level, it makes more sense for her to pursue further orgasms - and not necessarily with the same partner. (Five orgasms. Line up five guys. "Next!")
In thinking about how nature could have benefitted from this (why it would have sorted out that way in evolution), I came to a quick answer. Nature benefits from expanded genetic diversification - the opportunity for more and varied genetic mixes. Historically, it has been held that men accomplish this for the species by being able to wander about (even across large expanses of geography) impregnating a lot of women. It's often argued that one man could theoretically have hundreds of children in the time it takes a woman to have one. (270 days for a typical gestation, three seed-plantings a day, a fourth of them "take seed" - that's 200 births right there.) But it would be highly inefficient of nature to have let only half of a species contribute to this vitally important point of genetic diversification. On learning the above biochemical facts and their implications, I suddenly understood that women contribute to the same thing by having sex with many men in a short term (under a day) so that a wider variety of sperm are "competing: for the same egg.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Frater Horus said
"I see monogamy as a lie. Nothing wrong with it as far as you dont believe it."I'm very progressive and believe that polyamory, threesomes, any novelty regarding human relationships is adventurous - but when it comes to one on one - maybe I am old fashioned but i believe there is something divine as well regarding an extended romantic union.
Consider, Nuit and Hadit dont seem to require any other bed fellows at the party
"I agree, actually.There might be a princess charming who is not horrified by my Bukowskiesque ways. That would be divine.
-
Animal dominance behaviour at work in the species mean men compete for women. Therefore when we talk of polygamy we are usually talking about man with several female partners and it's extremely rare to find women in settled consensual relationships that have several partners.
In general, individuals of the species are just getting the hang of mastering their sexuality and being 'not animal'. However- social dynamics is at least as important a part of the Nephesh as sexuality and it is extremely rare (one in thousands) to meet individuals that are aware of and display mastery over the Nephesh in respect of the social sphere. Yet - in almost all cases, the interference of the true will arises from this aspect of the Nephesh.
Instead of doing their true will, people blindly obey authority figures in accord with their social conditioning. Instead of doing their true will, people blindly will conform to group norms and more, or they will practise bystander behaviour, or they will scapegoat people or be scapegoated, or they will just do anything to fit in. And this is as true of people who are achieving dominance in the social sphere as well as the submissives - through becoming overly controlling or getting ego invested in power and status (for example). It's all just animal/nephesh reactions and until a person can get past that then they are of the Man of Earth grade, and no MOE is fit to have more than one women at a time. They simply have not earned their spurs.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The net effect is (as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration), men are "one peak wonders" and women are "distance runners." The most natural consequence of this mix is that (1) men are done for the moment and may tend to fall asleep, and (2) women are wired to keep going, socially and communicatively engage, and exhibit behaviors that move toward having another orgasm. On a pure biologically functioning level, it makes more sense for her to pursue further orgasms - and not necessarily with the same partner. (Five orgasms. Line up five guys. "Next!")
In thinking about how nature could have benefitted from this (why it would have sorted out that way in evolution), I came to a quick answer. Nature benefits from expanded genetic diversification - the opportunity for more and varied genetic mixes. Historically, it has been held that men accomplish this for the species by being able to wander about (even across large expanses of geography) impregnating a lot of women. It's often argued that one man could theoretically have hundreds of children in the time it takes a woman to have one. (270 days for a typical gestation, three seed-plantings a day, a fourth of them "take seed" - that's 200 births right there.) But it would be highly inefficient of nature to have let only half of a species contribute to this vitally important point of genetic diversification. On learning the above biochemical facts and their implications, I suddenly understood that women contribute to the same thing by having sex with many men in a short term (under a day) so that a wider variety of sperm are "competing: for the same egg."
Interesting stuff. From the other direction, there is the Coolidge Effect:
"Human males experience a post-ejaculatory refractory period after sex. They are temporarily incapable of engaging in sex with the same female after ejaculation and require time to recover full sexual function. In popular reference, the Coolidge effect is the well-documented phenomenon that the post-ejaculatory refractory period is reduced or eliminated if a novel female becomes available."
-
@Alrah said
"My ex could cum 7 times or more in a row... it took him perhaps 20 seconds to get back to business. Don't put all males in the same category!"
I most pointedly did not.
Hence my, "(as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration)." -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"My ex could cum 7 times or more in a row... it took him perhaps 20 seconds to get back to business. Don't put all males in the same category!"I most pointedly did not.
Hence my, "(as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration)."" And if anyone doubts Mr Eshelman as to the fraternal exceptions to the rule they should take a look at his gorgeous and very happy looking wife... -
An important aspect of a relationship is the growth of intimacy in an almost “bhakti” way. The few cases of open relationships I saw where using the “opening” as a device to avoid deeper levels of intimacy, especially those that were somehow disturbing or unpleasant. I’ve also experienced the same tendency myself.
Of course I do not believe that it is some sort of rule, but It would be interesting to hear how others have dealt with it.
-
@Faus said
"An important aspect of a relationship is the growth of intimacy in an almost “bhakti” way. The few cases of open relationships I saw where using the “opening” as a device to avoid deeper levels of intimacy, especially those that were somehow disturbing or unpleasant. I’ve also experienced the same tendency myself.
Of course I do not believe that it is some sort of rule, but It would be interesting to hear how others have dealt with it."
My (ex)wife and I had an open relationship which was a thing I learned from a (Wiccan) couple I met in the 80s and both that couple's marriage and my marriage shared a great deal of intimacy if by intimacy you mean truthful, honest, heartfelt conversation and knowledge of each other's inner workings. I've gotten the impression that there's an old aeonic model that associates sex with debt, as in, since I have had sex with you, you owe me something in return. Sex is a mutual pleasure or it shouldn't be engaged in. Not only is that one of the debts incurred in old aeon models of love and relationship, but since I've given you privilege to my intimate nature, you cannot have that privilege anywhere but with me? Open relationships that are only focused on the sexual side of the openness and relationship concept have missed the point. Even non-sexually speaking, there are a great number of attractions and energies (not meaning new-agie "energies," but a transference of energies between people that generates excitement and motivation happens all the time) that an open marriage or open relationship is supposed to be designed to encourage.
Let's look at the "logical" argument that is made for fostering an open relationship: There's no possible way I could satisfy every single need, desire, or interest of anyone that I myself would find interesting. That is, if I were the only interest you ever had and needed, I"d quickly bore of you. So let me encourage you, if you need the encouragement, to explore the world outside our bedroom. Find the things that challenge and excite you. You like badminton? I love badminton! We have something we will share! You've discovered country line dancing? Oh dear. Have you found a suitable companion for that? I'm not interested in country music bars - but I'll go maybe when the moon is blue if you like. Hey, and I know you're no fan do-it-yourself projects but let me tell you this funny story I experienced yesterday!! Hahahaha - now we're having a relationship beyond "how was work?" "oh, same as it ever was." And if you happen to be dancing with that big buck of a cowboy and something stirs in you, something in your loins, something in your bosom, something in your breast, heart, or head that makes you tingle - I hope you don't need courage to feel free to talk to me about it and even if you get all spontaneous and act impulsively and find yourself somewhere you weren't originally planning on, there's no need to feel ashamed and frightened. And hey, maybe he taught you a trick I never saw myself - tell me about it.
That's an open relationship - not a promiscuous sex romp, but openness.
Typical closed relationship: "How was your day?" "Same ol' same ol', yours?" "Meh. mom had her corns removed again." "Interesting. When's dinner?" "Seven, like usual." "okay." "okay."
That's pretty intimate. -
I've noticed that a lot of the arguments people make against non monogamous relationships tend toward a universal "it can't/shouldn't be done", sometimes supplemented with a couple anecdotes about the challenges of non monogamy.
Whereas, from what I've observed, a lot of non monogamous purple I've known have put years of effort trying to make monogamy work for them, and finally decided to try something else.
Also, monogamy is the new kid in the block, and is pretty much only a cultural norm in a minority of the world.
That said, I think we should be very happy for anyone who finds that they prefer monogamy and can make it work.