The best examples I can think of would be the persians and pre-communist China, and even then that was a staple of the rich and the nobility, not the common person. A mans worth was measured in his opulent decadence, for the common man however monogamy was the staple. In most of those cultures it wasnt a cultural trend of normalcy, it was akin to the Western tradition of Prima Nocta, in which the nobles were trying to bring peace by having children with their surfs wives, because its harder to start a rebellion against your father.
INFJ's And Polyamory *multiamory*
- Thread starter Chessie
- Start date
The best examples I can think of would be the persians and pre-communist China, and even then that was a staple of the rich and the nobility, not the common person. A mans worth was measured in his opulent decadence, for the common man however monogamy was the staple. In most of those cultures it wasnt a cultural trend of normalcy, it was akin to the Western tradition of Prima Nocta, in which the nobles were trying to bring peace by having children with their surfs wives, because its harder to start a rebellion against your father.
What does it matter if peasants couldn't afford to have multiple wives? It was still a common practice among the wealthy and even the not-quite-so-wealthy-- and a part of the culture, as every peasant man aspired to obtain a concubine. Compare it to animals in the wild that fight for their mates. It's a competition. The strongest or fittest pass on their genes. Strangely, in humans, currency has been considered a marker of fitness in patriarchal societies.
Earlier peoples and cultures were not exclusively monogamous.
I don't know the ratio of monogamous to polygamous cultures in the world at a given time period, but polygamy worked for a great number of peoples for a long time.
I'm betting polygamy worked for those cultures with either a lot of servants to care for the children, or a more collective attitude of the tribe in sharing resources and taking responsibility to care for the offspring.
I guess the point is that there isn't one way to be.
Monogamy benefits some and polygamy benefits others.
Earlier peoples and cultures were not exclusively monogamous.
I don't know the ratio of monogamous to polygamous cultures in the world at a given time period, but polygamy worked for a great number of peoples for a long time.
I'm betting polygamy worked for those cultures with either a lot of servants to care for the children, or a more collective attitude of the tribe in sharing resources and taking responsibility to care for the offspring.
I guess the point is that there isn't one way to be.
Monogamy benefits some and polygamy benefits others.
Because it DOES matter. Peasants could likely have multiple children with multiple women even if they didnt marry them and yet by and large they didnt. The money is what made them do what they did, and the power. Money and power arent exactly common to everyone.
By not quite so wealthy I assume you meant, still WAY the fuck wealthier then the common person. And even then it wasnt even about a need for spreading seed or anything natural. It was about power.
No I wont compare it to animals in the wild. We aren't animals in the wild, we are humans and we are on our own leg of the evolutionary ladder with different instincts, gifts and traits. What the fuck difference does it make what a rabbit or a bid does? And every peasant man didn't aspire to obtain a concubine, anymore then they aspired to be the emperor or a noble. And stop saying patriarchal societies, did you just learn that word? Show me a non-monogomous maternal society.
Really? news to me.
More news to me.
And yet in cultures where the village DOES actually raise the children, they are still monogamous, like in Africa and South American tribal nations. And by the way, collectivism rarely works with humans, we are just too damned selfish.
Who ever said that wasnt the case? Monogamy is still natural for the majority of humans, because thats what we have always been. And for some people (a minority) it isnt.
Why are you so opposed to the reality that human beings are in fact, animals?
We're still guided by the same instincts as other animals. Eat, breed, survive... in whatever way that works.
Why are you so emotionally invested in this topic? I don't understand the anger.
Also..
Heian Japan was a patriarchal and matrilineal society, meaning that men governed, but all their wealth was passed onto female heirs..and the emperor was determined from the mother's side.
They were non-monogamous... The matriarchal Mosuo tribe in China have many sexual partners--they don't marry and so have no concept of a father or a spouse.
Collectivism rarely works for humans because those collectivist societies tend to be peaceful and unprepared for an attack, and are easily conquered by greedier peoples.
We're still guided by the same instincts as other animals. Eat, breed, survive... in whatever way that works.
Why are you so emotionally invested in this topic? I don't understand the anger.
Also..
Heian Japan was a patriarchal and matrilineal society, meaning that men governed, but all their wealth was passed onto female heirs..and the emperor was determined from the mother's side.
They were non-monogamous... The matriarchal Mosuo tribe in China have many sexual partners--they don't marry and so have no concept of a father or a spouse.
Collectivism rarely works for humans because those collectivist societies tend to be peaceful and unprepared for an attack, and are easily conquered by greedier peoples.
Last edited:
That would depend on your definition of animal. See, animals are simply put, not self aware. We are. Thats why we are not animals, if you mean we are evolved from animals and are made up of chiefly the same things and even share DNA and inherited instincts then yes... we are. But animals? no.
Guided? I wouldn't say guided, nudged maybe. We are guided by our intellect. If we weren't, we would still be living in caves eating raw meat and hiding from lightning. Insects and other non-animal lifeforms also follow similar patterns including germs. If we ever get A.I. off the ground, it will also probably follow a similar pattern, it is a rule of nature and existence.
You are projecting, I am not angry.
Yeah so .000000001% of the historic population had some crazy beliefs based on very specific circumstances. Hardly a rule of nature, and they also didnt survive.
Wrong, plain and simple. No one would call the USSR a weak nation at its height of power which is also when it was at its most collectivist. It failed because collectivism doesnt work with humans as we are...
you seem to be contradicting yourself on 1 hand you seem to believe that we are animals...
on the other you seem to think something as idealist as collectivism which goes against all logical perceptions of personal survival (an animal notion) will work.
Get real dude.
I'm not sure how to best address the oddness I see in championing humans as being on their own to take care of evolution now, while simultaneously defending a model of behavior that so strongly justifies primal urges like fear and jealousy. And I do agree that it's important to not automatically fall back on what is natural as though it is also going to be the voice of what is reasonable.
I think that the ability to say that we are naturally monogamous, rather than that we have been conditioned toward or into that over a long period of time, is clearly wrong. Referencing history as though it details something that contests this fails to illuminate a single detail for me thus far; both in this thread and elsewhere as a person who is very interested in discussing and evaluating the model of polyamory.
Billy, it seems to me as though you are acknowledging that a monogamous behavior is largely if not exclusively conditionally enforced, while simultaneously calling it a natural behavior. This may just be language, but since there has been so much debating on what is and isn't natural about this, I thought I'd try to clear the air.
Part of why I think you are acknowledging it as a matter of conditioning is because you seem to reference the sensibility of our quashing other natural tendencies that you have, in my opinion, thrown into comparison with a rather slanderously selected lot of other basic behaviors; murder, theft and rape. I'll just say that our positive behaviors come as much from a baseline of primal instincts as any of these negatives do, and I don't see anything yet cluing us into why our ability to love freely is supposed to be controlled as it is among the ranks of such heinous things as those you chose to list.
Furthermore, I have completely missed anything that supports the notion that a polyamorous model and engagement is less condusive to achieving success in human values (such as comfort, security, stability and love) than a traditional, monogamous model. I would be very interested in any thoughts to do with this; I am leaning toward suspecting that some good things could be said. I would, however, also expect for there to be some polyamoroy-positive points to be made on this matter as well.
I want to point out that we make choices in this area for reasons outside of human survival. A lot of the monogamous influence in human history is from religious doctrines, particularly monotheistic ones that exerted such force over our species in so many ways, in so many places and over, still, all times. Now, we'll either agree or disagree that these bodies of influence are completely considerate, and correct, or we won't. I think it's reasonable for us to admit that it may be healthiest for us to at least consider these matters for ourselves, rather than just taking them as divine facts of survival-interest, especially when that opinion was being formed and condoned several thousand years ago.
I don't readily find much reasoning as to why I should passionately be interested in, let alone borrowing frlom, the intuition of anybody who lived that long ago and thought that this model was the end of thought on the matter, and that whatever goal it even meant to best achieve, was properly understood, and would still be the goal for our species in a future so far away from their ability to fathom. And less so when that model is so embraced and detailed (if not originated by) such bodies of thought and influence that I personally find to be questionable in the very ideals.
So, if in 2011, we're open to evaluating what our ideals may be for a relationship, or our idea of love; is it really so difficult to say that behaviors like jealousy and insecurity are not ideal? Because that's the bulk of the weight I have tried to shed in my move to polyamory.
I've been wanting to weigh in on this thread for a while.. and have forgone pages of things I even prepared. Not wholly sure why; I guess I would rather respond to peoples disinterests and non-consideration about polyamory, than to go on a schpeal detailing it as ideal. Really awesome posts in here from you guys and it's nice to see this topic gaining more and more presence on the planet. Really liked everything from you Chessie, and o_q's post as well.
One last note for now: For me, it has actually taken a lot of work to fulfill certain criteria of weening myself away from posessive, jealous natures, as well as refining (and god is this hard) my ability to trust and maintain my security without constant, if even much reaffirmation from my significant other(s). This stuff is hard, and I am still working on it; but let me tell you that there is no disputing that I have become a better lover for either a monogamous or a polyamorous relationship through my self-improvement in these areas. And that makes me feel better about myself, and what I'm bringing to the table, and what I'm not bringing to the table.
I also think that this is related to my self-changes toward an ideal love, and being an ideal lover; I have also, for a few years now, been working on acquiring a sexual (and elsewise) attraction to other males. I more or less sat down one night and realized a shameful sensation to do with that; for all of my (and others) love for our significant other, for all of the profound connection and appreciation of everything about them that has nothing to do with their genitalia; wouldn't I be shit to throw away somebody who is all of that, even more, just because of what their genitalia is?
I see a bit of the same issue in monogamy; we may encounter somebody who is made out of all of the, if not more, beauty of our significant other. They overlap totally with the values we have for our lover, and yet... we are supposed to... not... love, cherish, appreciate, support, even acknowledge them.
Just some thoughts for the table. To me, it is clear that, as a species, we aren't, and haven't been critically thinking nor applying ourselves toward what may be ideal for love and human relationships. Or, we have, but with such minority, and lethargy, as to have only very recently become so much more able (and still so far from completely) to accept, condone, honor or be happy for love held between homosexuals.
I think that the ability to say that we are naturally monogamous, rather than that we have been conditioned toward or into that over a long period of time, is clearly wrong. Referencing history as though it details something that contests this fails to illuminate a single detail for me thus far; both in this thread and elsewhere as a person who is very interested in discussing and evaluating the model of polyamory.
Billy, it seems to me as though you are acknowledging that a monogamous behavior is largely if not exclusively conditionally enforced, while simultaneously calling it a natural behavior. This may just be language, but since there has been so much debating on what is and isn't natural about this, I thought I'd try to clear the air.
Part of why I think you are acknowledging it as a matter of conditioning is because you seem to reference the sensibility of our quashing other natural tendencies that you have, in my opinion, thrown into comparison with a rather slanderously selected lot of other basic behaviors; murder, theft and rape. I'll just say that our positive behaviors come as much from a baseline of primal instincts as any of these negatives do, and I don't see anything yet cluing us into why our ability to love freely is supposed to be controlled as it is among the ranks of such heinous things as those you chose to list.
Furthermore, I have completely missed anything that supports the notion that a polyamorous model and engagement is less condusive to achieving success in human values (such as comfort, security, stability and love) than a traditional, monogamous model. I would be very interested in any thoughts to do with this; I am leaning toward suspecting that some good things could be said. I would, however, also expect for there to be some polyamoroy-positive points to be made on this matter as well.
I want to point out that we make choices in this area for reasons outside of human survival. A lot of the monogamous influence in human history is from religious doctrines, particularly monotheistic ones that exerted such force over our species in so many ways, in so many places and over, still, all times. Now, we'll either agree or disagree that these bodies of influence are completely considerate, and correct, or we won't. I think it's reasonable for us to admit that it may be healthiest for us to at least consider these matters for ourselves, rather than just taking them as divine facts of survival-interest, especially when that opinion was being formed and condoned several thousand years ago.
I don't readily find much reasoning as to why I should passionately be interested in, let alone borrowing frlom, the intuition of anybody who lived that long ago and thought that this model was the end of thought on the matter, and that whatever goal it even meant to best achieve, was properly understood, and would still be the goal for our species in a future so far away from their ability to fathom. And less so when that model is so embraced and detailed (if not originated by) such bodies of thought and influence that I personally find to be questionable in the very ideals.
So, if in 2011, we're open to evaluating what our ideals may be for a relationship, or our idea of love; is it really so difficult to say that behaviors like jealousy and insecurity are not ideal? Because that's the bulk of the weight I have tried to shed in my move to polyamory.
I've been wanting to weigh in on this thread for a while.. and have forgone pages of things I even prepared. Not wholly sure why; I guess I would rather respond to peoples disinterests and non-consideration about polyamory, than to go on a schpeal detailing it as ideal. Really awesome posts in here from you guys and it's nice to see this topic gaining more and more presence on the planet. Really liked everything from you Chessie, and o_q's post as well.
One last note for now: For me, it has actually taken a lot of work to fulfill certain criteria of weening myself away from posessive, jealous natures, as well as refining (and god is this hard) my ability to trust and maintain my security without constant, if even much reaffirmation from my significant other(s). This stuff is hard, and I am still working on it; but let me tell you that there is no disputing that I have become a better lover for either a monogamous or a polyamorous relationship through my self-improvement in these areas. And that makes me feel better about myself, and what I'm bringing to the table, and what I'm not bringing to the table.
I also think that this is related to my self-changes toward an ideal love, and being an ideal lover; I have also, for a few years now, been working on acquiring a sexual (and elsewise) attraction to other males. I more or less sat down one night and realized a shameful sensation to do with that; for all of my (and others) love for our significant other, for all of the profound connection and appreciation of everything about them that has nothing to do with their genitalia; wouldn't I be shit to throw away somebody who is all of that, even more, just because of what their genitalia is?
I see a bit of the same issue in monogamy; we may encounter somebody who is made out of all of the, if not more, beauty of our significant other. They overlap totally with the values we have for our lover, and yet... we are supposed to... not... love, cherish, appreciate, support, even acknowledge them.
Just some thoughts for the table. To me, it is clear that, as a species, we aren't, and haven't been critically thinking nor applying ourselves toward what may be ideal for love and human relationships. Or, we have, but with such minority, and lethargy, as to have only very recently become so much more able (and still so far from completely) to accept, condone, honor or be happy for love held between homosexuals.
Last edited:
You are impossible to even have a conversation with, billy. Your tone is hostile.
Who are you to call those customs crazy, anyway? All you are doing is making your own arrogance apparent with each post.
I wasn't contradicting myself earlier.
It's called reciprocal altruism.
Who are you to call those customs crazy, anyway? All you are doing is making your own arrogance apparent with each post.
I wasn't contradicting myself earlier.
It's called reciprocal altruism.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
INFJs and polyamory "multiamory"
Agreed. I'n not promoting polygamy; I just don't have anything against it and it works for the three of us in many ways, some practical, some emotuinal. Our relationships with each other are unique and each requires work, tolerance and compassion. The biggest problem we run into isn't jealousy but the fact that we are all eldest children and therefore have strong opinions about how things should be run.
Agreed. I'n not promoting polygamy; I just don't have anything against it and it works for the three of us in many ways, some practical, some emotuinal. Our relationships with each other are unique and each requires work, tolerance and compassion. The biggest problem we run into isn't jealousy but the fact that we are all eldest children and therefore have strong opinions about how things should be run.
Our animal self is of the lower, limbic brain (hypothalamus, amygdala, etc.). Our cultural self is of the higher brain or cortex. Our animal self resists programming and largely operates on autopilot. Our cultural self is culturally programmed, and the great diversity of human cultures attests to the vast number of adaptations of which humankind has had to be capable. How else to explain that humans live in every environment on earth from the Inuit of the Arctic to the Bushmen of the Kalahari (and all biomes in between). Throughout humankind, there are many variations on "monogamy" as well as different kinds of polygamy and polyandry. That monogamy became the "ideal" for most cultures must mean that from a cultural/biological/economic perspective, it was adaptive/efficient. As to explaining and understanding polygamy and polyandry, you have to look at those societies within their cultural and environmental contexts. But, even within a particular culture, there is variety. And, in the more complex societies and cultures (such as ours) you're likely to find even more diversity. Nothing is black and white and nothing is simple.
Of course another reason for multiple partners was because of warfare. I know among Native tribes there were many tribes where men had multiple wives because of the death rate among men. Not so surprising when the census takers came around these wives were listed as "daughters" or "sisters" rather than wives.
Dogs make us human
I like the idea put forward by Dr. Paul S.C. Tacon, Australian Museum, Sydney and Dr. Colin Pardoe that humans picked up the habit of monogamy from wolves
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653864/posts
I like the idea put forward by Dr. Paul S.C. Tacon, Australian Museum, Sydney and Dr. Colin Pardoe that humans picked up the habit of monogamy from wolves
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653864/posts
I guess in some societies it does work, or at least partially does, since women are not allowed to have multiple husbands.
I'm a big believer in people being allowed to do what they want with their bodies, though I would never practice it myself.
Cheating for me is a totally unacceptible act. All my partners have been totally aware that cheating on me is just an automatic dismissal, no matter how long we've been together. If i'm faithful to them, they are expected to be the same to me, and I will accept no less.
However I do know people with more than one sexual partner, and it works for them because they are more accepting than I am. But they do seem to have more problems with their relationships than I do, and none of them have ever been in stable relationships.
I'm a big believer in people being allowed to do what they want with their bodies, though I would never practice it myself.
Cheating for me is a totally unacceptible act. All my partners have been totally aware that cheating on me is just an automatic dismissal, no matter how long we've been together. If i'm faithful to them, they are expected to be the same to me, and I will accept no less.
However I do know people with more than one sexual partner, and it works for them because they are more accepting than I am. But they do seem to have more problems with their relationships than I do, and none of them have ever been in stable relationships.
