Is monogamy a joke?

[1104]

oh shut up.
do you leap on everything called "black" and shout "that's racist"? animals respond to signals, rather than consider the context. i say sit, a dog sits, even if a car's about to hit him. don't be stupid.

again: in every culture, women were historically inferior.
think about it.

----

edit: actually forget it.

i meant that even in cultures that developed independently, women were HISTORICALLY considered inferior to men in almost all of them. it happens naturally, and as i said, that doesn't make it right.

this thread is a joke.

your ego survives on the idea that you're "open minded", but every time someone says the word "women" or "race" you can't get past the possibility of racism or sexism. consequently, you never get to see what the other person was trying to say, because you have this blind messiah complex, finding problems where there aren't any. THAT is real ignorance. if you weren't like that, you would have seen my point.

you started this thread because you found it interesting in that it reconsiders social values, but you're not even aware of your own closed-mindedness. i'll bet if there was an "-ism" for monogamy, this thread wouldn't even exist. and to be honest, the issue is a quick study, not very intellectually stimulating.

oh, and by the way, i'm female.

 

[Phage]

oh shut up.
do you leap on everything called "black" and shout "that's racist"? animals respond to signals, rather than consider the context. i say sit, a dog sits, even if a car's about to hit him. don't be stupid.

again: in every culture, women were historically inferior.
think about it.

Queen Elizabeth I - Queen of England, 1500s ACE

Khadijah - business woman in middle east circa 500s ACE

Marie Curie - Scientist 1800s

In Ancient cultures women were viewed as goddesses and creators of life. Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? Women civilize men. That was the truth to the ancient Mesopotamians. Every time the men leave the city they become uncivilized, then a woman always guides them back to the civilization. 1300 and 1000 BCE

Doesn't look like they are very inferior to me.

 

[Phage]

Then why didn't you just make that clear in the first place instead of calling people conditioned animals? If you didn't find this interesting you didn't have to look at it. I just wanted to know what side of the spectrum people stand on. What interested me was that the scientists were claiming that for a human to subject himself or herself to a monogamous relationship was not healthy. I genuinely only wanted to see opinions. I wasn't looking for a singular set of values, but rather many.

I don't find my "ego" to run on being open-minded. I know what limits I have.

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me if you are female or not. I thought you were claiming that females are inferior as a "matter of fact" because in your first post you stated: "females are naturally inferior". That to me is not a fair statement, so I spoke against it. However, now that I understand what you were saying, I agree with your statement to an extent.

 

[1104]

Then why didn't you just make that clear in the first place?

it was clear in the first place. other than three new words (independent, considered, almost), my final post was almost identical to what i had been saying over and over again: "woman are historically inferior. it's natural, but natural has nothing to do with moral/right."

why am i making an issue of this? because the discussion was compromised for the sake of calling me out on something i didn't do. misogyny was insinuated multiple times simply on the basis of the words "women" and "inferior" taken out of context. it was a careless lapse of judgment.

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me if you are female or not.

and i don't believe you in the slightest. glad you see my point.

 

[Phage]

it was clear in the first place. other than three new words (independent, considered, almost), my final post was almost identical to what i had been saying over and over again: "woman are historically inferior. it's natural, but natural has nothing to do with moral/right."

No. This was your first post:

of course, "natural" doesn't translate to morals. females are naturally inferior.

That's all you said in the beginning and thats the post I was responding to. You didn't state that women were considered inferior throughout history.

A few words make a big difference.

 

[1104]

alright. these were the assumptions i made:
1) you will make the connection between 3 occurrences of "natural"
2) you know that very rarely are people overtly misogynistic these days, so you will consider alternative meanings before sounding the alarm

neither person gave me the benefit of the doubt (as if i wasn't obvious enough) in both cases, it was more like "explain yourself or else it means you're sexist, you sexist bastard."

i'm not trying to make amends here, because if this happens again, it would have been for nothing. i'm illustrating how stupid blind accusations will ruin a potential discussion.

 

[bamf]

***Mod Warning***

We're all for discussion and debate, but lets keep this civil and somewhat on topic. If need be the thread can be split, and a new thread can be made. Also, if members have qualms with each other please try and solve things through PMs, or ask the staff to set up a mediation.

Thanks!

 

[Reon]

Edit: Guess not. Oh well, I miss all the fun.

 

[1104]

***Mod Warning***

We're all for discussion and debate, but lets keep this civil and somewhat on topic. If need be the thread can be split, and a new thread can be made.

i think that's a good idea, just in case.

 

[enfp can be shy]

All marriages should be illegal, or more precisely, irrelevant to the law. Monogamy is a joke, obviously, and I would let my wife at any time be with whoever she wants, if she prefers it; on the other hand, I expect myself to remain devoted for quite long. I enjoy doing the whole devotion thing, but it has many downsides, and is a bit stupid, so I wouldn't expect it from anyone to 'return' it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

All marriages should be illegal, or more precisely, irrelevant to the law. Monogamy is a joke, obviously, and I would let my wife at any time be with whoever she wants, if she prefers it; on the other hand, I expect myself to remain devoted for quite long. I enjoy doing the whole devotion thing, but it has many downsides, and is a bit stupid, so I wouldn't expect it from anyone to 'return' it.

That's shocking.

If your wife wanted to earn some extra money, would you be happy for her to sell her body?

 

[enfp can be shy]

That's shocking.

If your wife wanted to earn some extra money, would you be happy for her to sell her body?

The puritan cult of marriage is shocking. It belongs in times of slavery, when women were seen as just another asset to man's treasury. Extremely disturbing stupidity.

If it depended on me, I wouldn't like anyone's sexual desire to have anything to do with: money, power, humanitarian/artistic influence, even the so called intelligence (seen as resource). It should be something different. In the "modern" world most sexual activities are more subtle forms of rape. "Seduction", for example, is just another version of rape, what's the difference, it is manipulation, on purpose. Being in line with fashion. Did you wear/groom it, just like that, or did it imply that you would do whatever is needed to be seen as attractive.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The puritan cult of marriage is shocking. It belongs in times of slavery, when women were seen as just another asset to man's treasury. Extremely disturbing stupidity.

If it depended on me, I wouldn't like anyone's sexual desire to have anything to do with: money, power, humanitarian/artistic influence, even the so called intelligence (seen as resource). It should be something different. In the "modern" world most sexual activities are more subtle forms of rape. "Seduction", for example, is just another version of rape, what's the difference, it is manipulation, on purpose. Being in line with fashion. Did you wear/groom it, just like that, or did it imply that you would do whatever is needed to be seen as attractive.

Monogamamous marriage is a contract of mutual fidelity and commitment - I don't see how you can equate that with slavery. Slavery is not a contract but a claim of ownership.

Your second paragraph seems incoherent - other than your trying to say that sex should be compartementalised away from the rest of life and that this has some connection with doing away with rape? I can't make heads or tales of what you are saying.

You have a singularly unique and disturbing opinion of marriage and sex.

 

[Jack]

The puritan cult of marriage is shocking. It belongs in times of slavery, when women were seen as just another asset to man's treasury. Extremely disturbing stupidity.

Actually, it seems to me that marriage would be more likely a way of making sure women are taken care of, knowing men's tendency to "love em and leave em". If anything, it would probably be the anti-thesis of objectifying women.

In the "modern" world most sexual activities are more subtle forms of rape. "Seduction", for example, is just another version of rape, what's the difference, it is manipulation, on purpose.

You strike me as one who has gone through PUA material and become cynical... Or it could be a rationalization of your own behavior.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Monogamamous marriage is a contract of mutual fidelity and commitment.

Abracadabra-simsalabim. You probably think using law language magically makes it more meaningful. Speak in Latin directly, they used to worship it, because they couldn't understand a word from it.

@Jack

Actually, it seems to me that marriage would be more likely a way of making sure women are taken care of, knowing men's tendency to "love em and leave em". If anything, it would probably be the anti-thesis of objectifying women.

There's objectifying of women (and men!) right there in this sentence. Also, coincidentally, slave-owners used to argue that they take care of their slaves optimally, and that this is what the slaves want too.

You strike me as one who has gone through PUA material and become cynical... Or it could be a rationalization of your own behavior.

Mmm, none of that, but the whole process of attraction is very weird, you must admit; if we compare us with some funny tribes, we are not less funny.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Abracadabra-simsalabim. You probably think using law language magically makes it more meaningful. Speak in Latin directly, they used to worship it, because they couldn't understand a word from it.

Marriage has always been understood to be a contract at least in the Roman and later Christian understanding. If you want to call that "law language" you would not be mistaken.

True the Roman Laws of the defunct empire were written in Latin, but that really is irrelevant to the concept of what a contract is, don't you think?

 

[Jack]

There's objectifying of women (and men!) right there in this sentence. Also, coincidentally, slave-owners used to argue that they take care of their slaves optimally, and that this is what the slaves want too.

To objectify would be to treat them as objects, hence the term, so in what way is pointing out tendencies in behaviors and institutions to protect people from those tendencies objectification? Also, you haven't answered as to why is the "love em and leave em" method is a 'better way' of going about things.

Keep in mind, that absent marriage a woman could not insist on a ring wherein a man can't just cause her to be with child and just walk away. (although that can still happen very easily no doubt, but at least it does help to some extent)

At any rate, in marriage there is equal partnership, free choice, and committment to mutuality, how is that similar in any way at all with slaves who were seen as inferior and not allowed to answer for themselves?

Mmm, none of that, but the whole process of attraction is very weird, you must admit; if we compare us with some funny tribes, we are not less funny.

No doubt at all, and I actually agree with you that seduction is a version of rape in some sense, or at least I agree that it can be as well. I dont' see however why that makes marriage out-moded.

 

[INTJMom]

In my marriage and families class, my teacher mentioned some scientists believe that monogamy is unnatural for human beings. They believe that with the life span of a human, it doesn't make sense to be with only one person for the rest of his or her life span. Also, as people age their needs become different and so do their personalities so this could lead to people who were once compatible to become incompatible.

What do you think?

Edit: We were discussing monogamy and polygamy. I believe the type of monogamy we were debating with here was the traditional, one marriage your whole life (ideally).

I personally believe in monogamy for the emotional benefits. Monogamy brings a sense of security to the relationship that nothing else can. Since humans are emotional creatures, I would have to say that I don't believe polygamy would be beneficial to humans at all.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Also, you haven't answered as to why is the "love em and leave em" method is a 'better way' of going about things.

Still beating the straw man? I haven't even thought about such scenario, so I don't even consider it. My view is that if they don't enjoy the relationship anymore, well, they are better off, no one stops them. If it is obligation, then it's not real. I don't want people who are with me just because I have money/power/assets/protection or anything else to offer. Love should not be for buying and selling.

Equal partnership and mutuality, you say...? -- Yes, and yes! Agreed. But you also say there is fundamental difference in marriage obligation with regard to children etc. But the way I see it should be done, children should not depend on their parents too. They should be provided from birth with everything that a child could need, so that parents take care of them also without obligation. Parents who support their children because of obligation is again a horrible phenomenon, I would prefer no parent at all in such case, if I were the kid.

No doubt at all, and I actually agree with you that seduction is a version of rape in some sense, or at least I agree that it can be as well. I dont' see however why that makes marriage out-moded.

Ah, I didn't expect someone else could see such connection. It's probably a huge overstatement of mine to compare with rape, but I mean that the whole acquisition of love, whether through social status, or through social skills, is very disturbing, even if it's technically consensual. I mentioned it in describing why marriage is currently based on very weird (coercive) elements. Ideally, no one should take care of anyone, or in need to be cared for, and only then there would be 'true love'. What we have now is much much better than in the past, I agree on that, but it's still a bit perverse. I'm quite optimistic though; it seems it's going to improve rather rapidly.

 

[NeverAmI]

If you look at the communal evolution, or lack thereof, you find that it keeps shrinking further and further. Communities of trust and devotion are getting smaller and smaller, there are fewer people to rely on.

A long time ago, anyone in a small communal would typically assist with anyone else. Who can you trust? "Pretty much anyone here!"

These days, who the hell can you trust? Marriage in a legal system is irrelevant, and really any sort of paper contract and adding property to the pact seems to complicate everything, but it is kind of necessary I suppose since that is how our society is modeled. As for my potential wife sleeping with anyone she likes, hell no! This isn't a thing about power, it is about me not wanting her taking risks that could impact me. And I would offer the same in reciprocation. I don't go and sleep around for a couple of reasons:

1) Risk of STD. This is a HUGE risk. I don't want any of that crud. I don't want to have to choose between sleeping with my spouse or take the risk of catching something because she caught it. I don't think the benefit of a day of pleasure justifies that risk unless there is more to the equation.

2) Risk of attachment. Lust is closely related to love and it is common for one to lead to the other. The more individuals you add into that equation the more risk for complexity in a relationship. Suddenly Joe or Jim or Moe that your spouse slept with for fun now needs something and your spouse feels inclined to take from the resources you have pooled in expectation of supporting your immediate family in order to support someone else that you may not even know/like.

3) Risk of idealization. It is SO common to see the grass as greener. If you sleep around quite a bit then there is potential to have better chemistry with someone, even if temporary, and thus make the inference that dedicating yourself to that person would be more beneficial to spend the majority of your life with. Arguments happen, and it is perfectly reasonable to say that during some temporary argument the significant other will feel so inclined to leave for this other 'perfect' mate. So all of the sudden, the kids are crying, the spouse is leaving, and you know it is all bullshit and things most likely won't work out between those two. Even if it does work out for them, it is still a fairly significant loss for yourself and the children, unless you are a shitty parent, then it is just a loss for you.

4) Risk of impregnation. Ok so we all know what sex is biologically for, right? Of course the pill will help ensure this doesn't happen. If you are used to sleeping around, and you happen to not be on the pill right now, then you go sleep around and woops! condom didn't work like it was supposed to! There is always risk with this. I don't want to deal with complications of having to help raise the love child of Joe/Jane and the spouse.


Now, if this were in a small community where everyone assisted one another, then none of that would be a big deal, besides STD. But it doesn't work that way, and so that increases the implications of the risks.

If by some amazing contract it were possible to avoid ALL those risks (not just saying "yea I can do that" but rather ensuring it, because talk is cheap) then I suppose I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. However, the overhead seems SO steep and it seems so unlikely, to me, that it is even possible that I just dismiss the notion entirely.