Polygamy/Polyamory
-
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.
-
@kasper81 said
"why would Mother Nature invent STDs? To keep promiscuity in check? Is that a Malthusian esque argument? Are we talking about promiscuity or just 2 or 3 life long partners? I'd love to have 3 wives
I remember when I was kind of "courting" my first girlfriend I met at a college. Everywhere we went her female friend came. it really looked like we were 3
it's about quality isn't it?. For both sexes. Like let's say Takamba and I shared Roseanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell. He had Roseanne one half of the week whilst i had Rosie then we swapped mid-week"
A couple of things about this line of thinking stinks of holding on to some concepts that I guess might be considered old fashioned. STDs as a form of punishment? Then is the flu and chicken pox and all the rest Mother Nature's way of telling us we should stop breathing or congregating in large groups? As the virus is to my body, perhaps I am to my neighborhood... but then again, I haven't caught any disease greater than indigestion since I began working my Will.
Secondly, do we possess the Roses in your above mentioned fantasy? Possessing them is the only way I guess we could justify "sharing" them. Remember how I earlier mentioned this misconception that sex equals debt? That's a good example of what I meant. We can't "share" people, we can each be allowed to enjoy the pleasures of our given natures along with people who wish to participate.
You just reminded me of an old campfire song we used to sing. "Yes my brother we can share all the weed, share all the women and share all the wine, but I sure wish you'd start sharing yours b'cuzz we done shared all of mine."
-
@kasper81 said
"I understand that open relationships don't work if the 4 quadrants are not fully integrated. I get that. The point of my scenario was quality of our partners
There's a girl who is presently mad about me. She asked 3 women over a period of say 6 montsh to ask me to go out with her. Man she is butt ugly I just couldn't."
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
-
Cool story, bro.
-
Interesting comments. I asked originally because I started noticing some odd external events in my life. I'm really madly in love with my wife and we have a great relationship. She has this gorgeous best friend who she met overseas and her friend actually ended up marrying a guy in the next town over so she comes over and visits alot. She had a kid with the guy so they got married (hardcore xian families on both sides). I've felt this strong attraction to my wifes friend, and it's almost like life is being subliminal about the idea of a polyamorous relationship. My wife started making jokes about polygamy out of the blue and said she wouldn't get jealous. Her friend had a freudian slip one day in conversation and said, "I want to call us your wife" by which she meant she wanted to call my wife. Few other instances. Anyway, it got me thinking about the whole concept and was wondering why life seemed to be implying such a lifestyle when i had never really considered it. I wouldn't be opposed
I'm a bit of a jungian though and was wondering if I was unconsciously projecting my anima onto her friend and she was responding in kind, hence I am the culprit of the mentioning's and freudian slips.