Monogomy and free society

[Forward Union]

Monogomy and free society

by me :)

I personally feel that it's totally incompatible with the aims and ethical foundation of a
libertarian-communist society regardless of transition. But maybe I've rattled more trees
than I intended. Let me start by giving a definition of monogamy, "The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time. Or The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time" but before I accept that definition and continue, let us examine what it means ethically. Unlike any alternative, Monogamy implies that to have more than one sexual partner, is an immoral act, unjust, unacceptable. At least from the monogamists perspective. In modern usage it also implies marriage, but that's something to address later.

Im certain now, there's disagreement and confusion amongst people reading this. For some, the statement "as long as me and my partner remain monogamous, I don't mind how many partners you have" may be creeping to the forefront of your criticisms. For parts of this I will be referring to Monogamy as a social ethical state, rather than an individuals sexual practice (however, not at the moment). But let's go straight for the jugular. Now im not here to argue that you should not be allowed to hold this monogamous relationship (for that is your autonomous right) It is not my intention to accuse anything of being immoral or wrong. However, the reasoning behind a monogamous it is flawed, at least fro ma revolutionary perspective.

I have of course made an assumption, that you and I as revolutionaries do in fact want a free and equal society. If not then these criticisms do not apply. But, in a society in which everyone is autonomous, has the chance to act independently of any arbitrary authority, then this libertarian principal echoes on all levels of social conduct. Including the sexual. Monogamy as an ethical practice is contradicting the liberty of such a civilisation, at least in application to humans. Recent studies show that statistically, 53% of people are likely to have an affair, 86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex. And most notably 65% of men and 55% of women admit to having sex with people they work with. Allow me to sum up what the statistics scream out, humans are not monogamous, they are in fact selfish. This is why couples consent to monogamous relationships, because they are greedy, they want their lover to remain loyal and obedient, whilst hypocritically, would often not object to casual sexual activities with another.
The statistics also show something else, that monogamy also requires one to suppress their own desires, and feelings in order to work. This is simply not acceptable in a free and equal society, and is horrifyingly reminiscent of puritanism. For the ones who take monogamy one step further toward lunacy, lets address the sanctity of marriage. Not only does it violate the human condition, but it also adds some made-up spiritual meaning to the whole affair. To have a monogamous relationship anointed by god is just as bad as trying to justify slavery with an imaginary blue banana-rabbit. As religion in any organised form must be abolished, so therefor will marriage, there is little more worth saying on this, without debating the existence of god, who is still busy trying to make a rock heavier than he can lift.
Moving on, let me pose this situation to the monogamist. You fall in love with someone, you have a relationship, and neither of you "cheat" on eachoher, then suddenly, you meet another, whom you love as much as the first. Do you ignore you feelings? suppress them? Choose between them, try to have a secret relationship without either discovering, or have an open relationship with them both? Which one seems the most natural beautiful, and free? This brings me to another point, perhaps one of my last, and that is that I see no real basis for the monogamists argument. * In all circumstances it's seems to boil down to one of 3, That it is a spiritual or divine connection that must be obeyed. That it 'hurts' for a partner to 'cheat' and this is therefor proof of monogamy, or that it's a consensual act between two people that a libertarian society must accept. The first one is irrational religious banter, the second is a product of social conditioning, and I feel I have gone some way toward proving humans are not monogamous, the third actually rests on non-monogomous principals, and is therefor somewhat unusual. I need only add that such a scenario is unlikely, I see no reason why any consent would occur, and if it did, why it would be meaningful, im yet to see evidence of a truly monogamous couple.
To sum up, fuck monogamy. It's boring, grey, dull. It's horribly reminiscent of puritanism and the idea of slavery, in which one has the right over another. It's unnatural, and undesirable. In some cases authoritarian, in all cases inhuman.

*Ironically as I was writing this, I was interrupted to be informed that my cousins marriage has ended after a long 6 months, oh the relevance

[EusebioScrib]

Right on, except for this:


they are in fact selfish. This is why couples consent to monogamous relationships, because they are greedy, they want their lover to remain loyal and obedient, whilst hypocritically, would often not object to casual sexual activities with another.

Acceptance of monogamy has nothing to do with being selfish. It's all about the time and place they are living. Being determines consciousness.

I don't see anything morally "wrong" with monogamy. The problem isn't how many lovers one has, the problem is the commitment, marriage. Most people can't stand being with the same person their whole lives. There needs to be complete flexibility. To bind someone in a life-long contract to anything is something that is injust and unequal.

[Janus]

I agree with you EusebioScrib and AF. Our actions shouldn't be dictated based on the beliefs of regular society. However, I still don't know why one would want two wives as it would be quite difficult for the man to give both woman the same amount of love. In most polygamous relationships, we have seen the inherent inequality that goes with it. However, I do agree that people should be left to choose what type of relationship they want to have in a free society.

[MurderInc]

EEEEKKKK!

While in theory, a socialist society would appear to more likely support polygomy, and sexual freedom, the history over the last 100 years has shown that capitalist societies have been more open sexually.

No joke.

[apathy maybe]

The problem is not where both partners are monogamous or both are polygamous, but when one is one, and the other the other, and the monogamous partner wants the other to be monogamous as well.

Which is a form of selfishness, and I cannot see why in a free society such a thing would happen.

(Also I oppose legalistic/religious marriage, it just makes things more complicated, besides, what business is it of the state if I am living or not with a person?)

[Hit The North]

In Western Capitalist society, monogamy is one of a number of options individuals can choose for themselves. Although the State legitimates monogamy through marriage and so prioritises it above other choices, no body is compelled to adhere to it. Polygamy is only a problem if it is manifest through marriage - it is not an offence for a man to have two or more families, it's an offence if he marries all the women, however.

Obviously in a socialist/communist society, there will be no State-controlled, official marriage ceremony so there's a chance that polygamous, cross-cutting relationships and family structures will become more common.

One thing that we need to take into account will be the changing relationships between men and women. Under capitalism, marriage is a property relation and emerges from a specific ideology (patriarchy) which permeates the way men and women see themselves and each other. This will no longer be the case once we rid the world of capitalism and patriarchy and men and women can begin to formulate a truly human appreciation of each other.

This will not, in my opinion, result in the extinction of monogamous relationships as they offer positive aspects for human development such as emotional security, a sense of solidarity and, of course, love. But I could be wrong.

[wet blanket]

Unlike any alternative, Monogamy implies that to have more than one sexual partner, is an immoral act, unjust, unacceptable. At least from the monogamists perspective.
Not necessarily. In the case of my girlfriend and I, we're simply uninterested in having any sort of physical or romantic relationship with anyone else other than each other. By choosing to remain in a monogamist due to our exclusive interests in each other(aka being in love), we do not imply that having a sexual relationship with more than one person is somehow wrong. There's been a time in my life where I had sexual and/or romantic relationships with two or more people and I completely understand that some people would prefer that over a monogamist relationship. We, however, find that a monogamist relationship to be more desirable for many reasons: Minimization/elimination of health risks associated with all sexual relationships, a mutual understanding and reassurance of the pregnancy avoidance/abortion issue, convenience, exclusive romantic interest, and stability. If she, for some reason, one day came up to me and told me that she had sex with the milkman, I'd be a little surprised and immediately concerned about wether or not protection was used but wouldn't be hurt emotionally at all. I just asked, and she said she wouldn't be hurt if I had sex with the milkman either, instead she said she found the notion pretty amusing.


This is why couples consent to monogamous relationships, because they are greedy, they want their lover to remain loyal and obedient, whilst hypocritically, would often not object to casual sexual activities with another.
Not in my case. The figure of 14% of men who don't routinely flirt with other women is too large of a percentage to be considered a statistical anomaly, which pretty much knocks down your argument that "the statistics scream out, humans are not monogamous". Being a biology major, I'll be first to admit that the primary functions of any living organism can be boiled down to feeding itself and spreading its seed(genetics). But given the human condition and our obvious higher-level consciousness which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, many of our social relationships cannot be held to such rigid behavioral 'laws' such as "humans aren't monogamist". Moreover, such assertions are not really useful at all.


Now im not here to argue that you should not be allowed to hold this monogamous relationship (for that is your autonomous right) It is not my intention to accuse anything of being immoral or wrong.
...
To sum up, fuck monogamy. It's boring, grey, dull. It's horribly reminiscent of puritanism and the idea of slavery, in which one has the right over another. It's unnatural, and undesirable. In some cases authoritarian, in all cases inhuman.
:lol: You may want to consider a second draft of this essay for the sake of consistency. How is a free and voluntary association of two consenting parties reminiscent of puritanism and the idea of slavery. You're making some rather sweeping generalizations of millions of relationships between people all over the world, most of whom you'll never know. When put in this perspective, what you're saying sounds very naive. Instead of projecting your own perception of what a monogamist relationship is upon the social relations of other people who you don't know, I think it would be best to save judgment for individual cases that you're familiar with.


I need only add that such a scenario is unlikely, I see no reason why any consent would occur, and if it did, why it would be meaningful, im yet to see evidence of a truly monogamous couple.
The monogamist character of our relationship isn't meaningful, you're absolutely right. I'm very sure that there's probably several girls(or guys) out there that I could have very fulfilling polyamorous relationships with. But that would involve myself putting all sorts of effort to actively seek them out locally and investing the time and effort required for a relationship. I find it much more convenient and healthy to stick with one person who I'm intimately familiar with physically and emotionally.

We could also consider the polar opposite of the monogamist paradigm, an orgiastic relationship model. In today's world, considering the population density in large modern cities, it would be an absolute disaster health-wise. Just look at what happened in the mid 70's-90's with the relatively small gay population and HIV...

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 17 2006, 12:36 PM
Not necessarily. In the case of my girlfriend and I, we're simply uninterested in having any sort of physical or romantic relationship with anyone else other than each other
Which is perfectly compatible with a polysexual society. So long as when your girlfriend gets sexual urges for another, neither you nor her try to prevent any action being taken, which you have stated is the case. I would actually say you are in a polysexual relationship (ethically) it's just a matter of application that classes you as "monogamous"


Not in my case. The figure of 14% of men who don't routinely flirt with other women is too large of a percentage to be considered a statistical anomaly

Easily refutable. Firstly it's not a trend, it's a discrepancy. And secondly, I would postulate that those men simply didn't admit it.


which pretty much knocks down your argument that "the statistics scream out, humans are not monogamous".

Not at all, for the reasons above, I'd also like to add that 14% is an extreme minority, and that 14 may well be open to criticism.

Even if those people have never ever ever had even one slight sexual tingling toward another who isn't their partner, they're still a marginal minority. Humans are not monogomous.


You may want to consider a second draft of this essay for the sake of consistency. How is a free and voluntary association of two consenting parties reminiscent of puritanism and the idea of slavery.

I was referring to monogamy as a blanket moral standard, rather than an individual example of two consenting people. I personally feel, that no matter what they say, the old cobwebs that go to church everyday, have been married to the same woman for 70 years, never once acted on his urges, are perfectly in line with Puritanism. They have volunteered a life of boredom and mental self-repression for some bullshi-moral Religious order they had forced on them as children.

As for slavery? I'll have to actually take Monogamy further into it's Judaeo-Christian interpretation, in which the male actually owns the female (in the eyes of God) 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. this chauvinism is inherent in the principals of marriage, and so a married communist is a complete contradiction.


But that would involve myself putting all sorts of effort to actively seek them out locally and investing the time and effort required for a relationship. I find it much more convenient and healthy to stick with one person who I'm intimately familiar with physically and emotionally.

Yet you put the effort in to find one. Having more than one person to be intimate with is just as easy, simple and somewhat more fulfilling than a monogamous relationship, which to me denotes all kinds of rules and morals that I consider defunct and bullshit.

[Hit The North]

Yet you put the effort in to find one. Having more than one person to be intimate with is just as easy, simple and somewhat more fulfilling than a monogamous relationship, which to me denotes all kinds of rules and morals that I consider defunct and bullshit.

If I was a woman (which I'm not), I'd just smile at that quote and think, "There goes another male with commitment phobia." :D

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 17 2006, 02:00 PM

Yet you put the effort in to find one. Having more than one person to be intimate with is just as easy, simple and somewhat more fulfilling than a monogamous relationship, which to me denotes all kinds of rules and morals that I consider defunct and bullshit.

If I was a woman (which I'm not), I'd just smile at that quote and think, "There goes another male with commitment phobia." :D
I never said commitment wasn't involved :rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Monogamy is the culmination of the development of sexual relations between humans:


Originally posted by Morgan
When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society ... it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.

The Monogamous Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm)

I think it will not fail to answer the requirements of society, and will stand in place even firmer after the equality of sexes is attained. About 100 years has been passed since that was written, so far I'm being proven right.

Also read: The Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm)

[RebelOutcast]

One could easily claim polygamy stems back the pre-historic times when there were not the family structures we have today, but tribes with one alpha male above the rest of the tribe. That polygamy is the ultimate expression of one gender having supremacy over another. That polygamy is the expression of the primal instinct to proliferate the strongest set of genes.
It can be said that monogamy is the culmination of gender equality where one male and female truely love each other and feel no primal instinct to shag as many people as possible in an adolescent, hormone-fueled lust.

Nice psuedo-sociology Additives.

PS: And I thought you believed that there was no such thing as human nature, your claim that the statistics show that humans are selfish leaves you open to the "communism/socialism/anarchism won't work because humans are selfish!" attack.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:29 PM
PS: And I thought you believed that there was no such thing as human nature, your claim that the statistics show that humans are selfish leaves you open to the "communism/socialism/anarchism won't work because humans are selfish!" attack.
That's true. At best we react similarly based on the trends and patterns that have already emerged, this by no stretch of imagination means that humanity itself is clearly based around certain values constantly.

I don't think monogamy is necessarily bad, if two people want to do it then being consenting then naturally they should be allowed. I don't think it's a hinderance to the development of a more communist culture either. It's alright for people to say they can see other people, but in my experience that ends up with one person or another getting hurt, but if people want that too then it's fine by me.

[Armed_Philosopher]

This is one serious objection I had to some of the ealier crimethinc material....though they later changed their views on this.

I dont believe there is anything wrong with being poly. I dont believe in controling people who practice polyarmory or imposing societies standards on them.

I have a serious problem with people who claim that monogomy is "Anti-Revolutionary". Thats just garbage.

I believe that volontary agreements between consenting individuals are valid, wether the agreement is to have open non-comitted sex, or stay in a closed relationship.

What I do reject is the old testament biblical view that a woman is the property of the man. That kind of thinking just fly among Anarchists. Should a person in a commited relationship choose to back out of an agreement, then that has to be respected.


Whats realy anti-revolutionary is telling other people how to live and choose their mates. We shouldnt impose our values onto other people.

[wet blanket]

I would actually say you are in a polysexual relationship (ethically) it's just a matter of application that classes you as "monogamous"
I'm not concerned with morals and ethics at all.


Easily refutable. Firstly it's not a trend, it's a discrepancy. And secondly, I would postulate that those men simply didn't admit it.
Depends on the size of the population surveyed. 14% can be a significantly large amount of people, you can't really say that's a discrepancy if you're going to try make a scientific claim regarding the nature of human behavior.


Not at all, for the reasons above, I'd also like to add that 14% is an extreme minority, and that 14 may well be open to criticism.
14% of the world's population(or the USA's for that matter) is not an extreme minority at all.


Humans are not monogomous.
Humans are complex creatures that adapt well and behavioral patters are based on various physical and social variables. These kinds of "human nature" arguments are pretty much bunk.


I was referring to monogamy as a blanket moral standard, rather than an individual example of two consenting people.
Well, I view monogamy in more of a zoological sense, not moral. Like I've said, attacking monogamy and making up unscientific behavioral laws based on limited survey data is simply not useful. While you do have very valid criticisms of social conditioning and self-repression in relationships, these are the symptoms of a 'sick' society and not the cause. Much more useful criticism would be directed at the social institutions(such as religion, government, and the concept of marriage) which perpetuate these sorts of things.


Yet you put the effort in to find one. Having more than one person to be intimate with is just as easy, simple and somewhat more fulfilling than a monogamous relationship, which to me denotes all kinds of rules and morals that I consider defunct and bullshit.
:lol: I work full time and am wrapping up a double-major undergraduate degree. I hardly have time for one romantic partner as it is, which is why I listed convenience as a major reason I choose to have only one partner. Now, I lover her more than anything but having TWO girlfriends would just add further complication to my life. All that said, I do support anyone who wishes to consent to a polyamorous relationship.

[Forward Union]

Depends on the size of the population surveyed. 14% can be a significantly large amount of people, you can't really say that's a discrepancy if you're going to try make a scientific claim regarding the nature of human behavior.

It doesn't matter how many people 14% is, the remainder will be far greater, rendering the 14% to be insignificant. And as I pointed out, it's highly likely that 14% is extremely generous.


14% of the world's population(or the USA's for that matter) is not an extreme minority at all.

Yes it is.


Humans are complex creatures that adapt well and behavioral patters are based on various physical and social variables. These kinds of "human nature" arguments are pretty much bunk.

The only aspect of human nature I stated was infact human nature was the urge to have sex or to attain sexual gratification. Are you saying this is bunk? Even if we look at Matriachal societies like The Minangkabau, we still see that despite humans having different behavioural patterns, and living in very different social structure there is still a suppression on human urge. I've offered statistics, and case examples which strongly indicate that people want to have a sexual relationship with more than one person over a period of time, different social conditions can only repress this.


Well, I view monogamy in more of a zoological sense, not moral. Like I've said, attacking monogamy and making up unscientific behavioral laws based on limited survey data is simply not useful.

And who's done that? You call overwhelming evidence unscientific, and offer no counter facts, only rhetoric.


While you do have very valid criticisms of social conditioning and self-repression in relationships, these are the symptoms of a 'sick' society and not the cause.

I never claimed Monogamy was the cause of a sick society.


Much more useful criticism would be directed at the social institutions(such as religion, government, and the concept of marriage) which perpetuate these sorts of things.

I agree, but recognising Monogamy as another extension of these oppressive institutions is, in my opinion important in liberation. We shouldn't carry over oppressive traditions into the new world.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:29 PM
One could easily claim polygamy stems back the pre-historic times when there were not the family structures we have today, but tribes with one alpha male above the rest of the tribe. That polygamy is the ultimate expression of one gender having supremacy over another. That polygamy is the expression of the primal instinct to proliferate the strongest set of genes.
And how would you prove your assertions of the structures of prehistoric human relationships? Perhaps that would be the easy bit, you're also asserting that Patriachy is inherant in Polygamy, and that polygamy is what I was arguing for. If you measure all human sexual relationships in a quantifiable way, yes I would agree with you on a postulative basis. However, I would see free and open relations as a tension toward quality rather than a deduction toward quantity.


It can be said that monogamy is the culmination of gender equality where one male and female truely love each other and feel no primal instinct to shag as many people as possible in an adolescent, hormone-fueled lust.

You made an assumption, that polysexual relations cannot develop further than lust. You also speak of true love, although it's not known what exactly causes "love" it's known what love is. And there are enough examples of people loving "two" humans are once, and acting in a sincere and loving way with them both. Love is not some unique or superior attribute found only in monogomy.

It also soudns to me that you were almost advocating the supression of humans sexual urges. Human instict to shag? what dirty discusting heathenry! cover it up.

(I'll let you off the hetrosexual assumption :P )


Nice psuedo-sociology Additives.

There's no such thing as Psuedo-scoiology, as it is largely a hypothetical study, based largely on opinion and speculation.

My hypothesis are just as much psuedo-sociology as anything you could assert to the contrary, infact, it's recognised as a valid sociological theory. I certainly didn't invent it.

"We, as citizens of a monogamous culture, are usually taught that monogamy is "natural" and that all other forms of sexual relations are wrong. But the evidence is clear that humans are capable of maintaining a variety of different mating patterns. It would seem, from this, that no particular pattern is innate to our species. In light of the fact that there are other societies that accept polyandry or polygyny as the norm, one can only conclude that monogamy, and the values of sexuality it implies, is a socialized institution. There is no particular marriage structure that is innate to the human species." - The Myth of Monogomy (http://www.polyorlando.org/html/monogamy_myth.htm)

stop being so arrogant.


PS: And I thought you believed that there was no such thing as human nature, your claim that the statistics show that humans are selfish leaves you open to the "communism/socialism/anarchism won't work because humans are selfish!" attack.

Saw that one coming a mile off. But it's my fault I wasn't clear enough. I was attempting to say that Humans are not monogamous naturally, they are in fact selfish or Chauvinistic as a result of social conditions. On this ground I'd also agree with the capitalists that humans are greedy, under capitalist social circumstances.

[Led Zeppelin]

Nice to see how my post was ignored....

Could you please respond to the fact that it has been established by Engels and other historians that The Monogamous Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm) is the most advanced form of family at the moment, and there is a high probability of that not changing?

Of course it would be an offence to science to claim something will happen without leaving open possibilities for "error" in a theory, but from studying the past forms of family structures all the way up until now we can see that monogamy is here to stay...most likely.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:03 PM
Could you please respond to the fact that it has been established by Engels and other historians that The Monogamous Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm) is the most advanced form of family at the moment, and there is a high probability of that not changing?

I haven't read it, and at the moment I don't have time, if you could sum it up? :)

[RebelOutcast]

I'm going to go as far as saying that biologically, polygamy is patriarchical.
A female only needs one male to impregnate her, a male can impregnate as many females as he wants, the inverse is not true. In this context it does not make sense for a female to be polygamous, it just increases the risk of contracting disease.

Ok, now for something a bit more contempory/relevant and practical.
Additives, go out somewhere, find someone you've never met, and cultivate a relationship with them, then once the relationship is fairly well established, tell them that you're a polygamist/polyamorous and that you have 3 other partners. See how much they like being told that.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:49 PM
I'm going to go as far as saying that biologically, polygamy is patriarchical.

Good, but no one was arguing for polygamy.


A female only needs one male to impregnate her, a male can impregnate as many females as he wants, the inverse is not true. In this context it does not make sense for a female to be polygamous, it just increases the risk of contracting disease.

This criticism is only relative if your definition of Polygamy is "to have children with more than one person" In modern civilisation we have forms of protection that means that sexual relationships don't have to be geared toward a child. This is just promiscuity. Even females have sexual urges, believe it or not. For more than one person at a time, I don't think the biological imbalance will be a particular deterrent, unless their definition of polysexuality is as I outlined above. If however, they see sexual interaction as nothing more than an extension of existing friendship, then the biological argument collapses. Everyone has a relationship, with everyone else they meet, Im simply saying that the're should not be barriers stopping them developing their friendships past a certain point.

Anarchism is after all supposed to be the complete destruction of all limits.

Biology can also be interpreted to back up the idea that Homosexuality is "wrong", sex for pleasure, and now polysexuality. None of which hold weight.


Ok, now for something a bit more contempory/relevant and practical.
Additives, go out somewhere, find someone you've never met, and cultivate a relationship with them, then once the relationship is fairly well established, tell them that you're a polygamist/polyamorous and that you have 3 other partners. See how much they like being told that.

I'd normally tell them beforehand, and I can tell you that in practice, it seems to work well. Naturally many people would oppose polysexuality, or "promiscuity" but as we've been saying for the past day or so, we live in a socially conditioned, monogamous society.

[Armed_Philosopher]

This is a pretty silly argument.

Lets just make our own decisions on who we want to sleep with. Lets leave it at that without trying to read too deep into the revolutionary implications of it all.

[wet blanket]

(in response to the 14% statistic) Yes it is.
Let me assure you that 14% is FAR too large of a figure for you to disregard when you're studying the behavior of a species. That's over a tenth of the population! This isn't just rhetoric, this is how you go about studying this sort of thing.


It doesn't matter how many people 14% is, the remainder will be far greater, rendering the 14% to be insignificant.
Like I said, disregarding 14% of a population studied is simply not the way you go about studying these sorts of things if you're looking to make a claim such as the one we're discussing. Not only that, I'd also wager that this was a regional study. Have any more information on where these numbers came from?


The only aspect of human nature I stated was infact human nature was the urge to have sex or to attain sexual gratification. Are you saying this is bunk?
Yes but you took it further saying that it was "natural" to have more than one sexual partners at the same period of time. That is what I was calling bunk.


And who's done that? You call overwhelming evidence unscientific, and offer no counter facts, only rhetoric.
You've given no sources to this data, for all I know you're making it up. This is hardly what I'd call overwhelming. I did state a pretty clear fact: When studying the behavioral patterns of a species, 14% of the sample population is not something you can just overlook because it's a minority.


I agree, but recognising Monogamy as another extension of these oppressive institutions is, in my opinion important in liberation. We shouldn't carry over oppressive traditions into the new world.
You're wrong to criticize monogamy. That's really stupid, to put it bluntly. I get the gist of your criticism, but you're aiming at the wrong target. If anything, criticize marriage, not monogamy! Monogamy is simply the act of having one sexual/romantic partner for certain period of time for whatever reason. This, in and of itself, is not oppressive and why I said that criticism of monogamy is not useful.


This is a pretty silly argument.

Lets just make our own decisions on who we want to sleep with. Lets leave it at that without trying to read too deep into the revolutionary implications of it all.
Exactly!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 19 2006, 06:23 AM
Let me assure you that 14% is FAR too large of a figure for you to disregard when you're studying the behavior of a species. That's over a tenth of the population! This isn't just rhetoric, this is how you go about studying this sort of thing.

But we haven't disregarded that 14% I personally feel that 14% is a far greater number than should be expected. Between 0 and 1% is perhaps more accurate. But this is just speculation.

I'd like to also add that 14% is an extreme minority, and therefore not important when studying social trends within an entire species. Though it would be interesting to discover why such a large minority exists.


Have any more information on where these numbers came from?

It's across the board, so it doesn't really matter where you look for the statistics although yes those stats came from the US. You can check shit here (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/)


Yes but you took it further saying that it was "natural" to have more than one sexual partners at the same period of time. That is what I was calling bunk.

If it's unnatural to submit yourself to a single partner, then not doing so is....


You've given no sources to this data, for all I know you're making it up

Yay mudfight.


This is hardly what I'd call overwhelming. I did state a pretty clear fact: When studying the behavioural patterns of a species, 14% of the sample population is not something you can just overlook because it's a minority.

no one has overlooked it.



You're wrong to criticise monogamy. That's really stupid, to put it bluntly. I get the gist of your criticism, but you're aiming at the wrong target. If anything, criticize marriage, not monogamy! Monogamy is simply the act of having one sexual/romantic partner for certain period of time for whatever reason. This, in and of itself, is not oppressive and why I said that criticism of monogamy is not useful.

Depends what your definition of monogamy is, or your rationale behind it. Many people see it as inherently good to only have one partner, and that to have more than one is wrong. This is the fundamental backbone of monogamy that I detest, and have been trying to attack, the more intelligent, free thinkers like yourself, understand monogamy as a consensual autonomous decision between two people. But as long as those two are also polysexual ethically (like yourself) then there is no conflict between myself and monogamy. We pretty much agree here.




Lets just make our own decisions on who we want to sleep with. Lets leave it at that without trying to read too deep into the revolutionary implications of it all.
Exactly!

I agree, we should just make our own decisions on who we want to sleep with. The monogamists just disagree!

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Additives Free+May 18 2006, 02:47 PM--> (Additives Free @ May 18 2006, 02:47 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 02:03 PM
Could you please respond to the fact that it has been established by Engels and other historians that The Monogamous Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm) is the most advanced form of family at the moment, and there is a high probability of that not changing?

I haven't read it, and at the moment I don't have time, if you could sum it up? :) [/b]
Sure, I could sum it up:

The Consanguine Family ---> The Punaluan Family ---> The Pairing Family ---> The Monogamous Family.

The Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Massoud+May 19 2006, 02:23 PM--> (Massoud @ May 19 2006, 02:23 PM)
Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 18 2006, 02:47 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 02:03 PM
Could you please respond to the fact that it has been established by Engels and other historians that The Monogamous Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm) is the most advanced form of family at the moment, and there is a high probability of that not changing?

I haven't read it, and at the moment I don't have time, if you could sum it up? :)
Sure, I could sum it up:

The Consanguine Family ---> The Punaluan Family ---> The Pairing Family ---> The Monogamous Family.

The Family (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm) [/b]
Thank's for suming it up. :)

Theres a lot here that answers Engles assumption, if I typed it here i'd simply be regurgitating it.

http://www.polyorlando.org/html/are_we_ready_.htm

[wet blanket]

If it's unnatural to submit yourself to a single partner, then not doing so is....
That's the thing, it's not unnatural to have only one partner. LOTS of animals do this, and they don't even have social institutions perpetuating it. When stripped of things like marriage, a monogamist relationship is just that, two people seeing each other exclusively. It's not unnatural at all.


Yay mudfight.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I'm just very skeptical of these types of claims.


Depends what your definition of monogamy is, or your rationale behind it.
There's really only one.


Many people see it as inherently good to only have one partner, and that to have more than one is wrong.
This is because of institutions like marriage and religion.


This is the fundamental backbone of monogamy that I detest, and have been trying to attack, the more intelligent, free thinkers like yourself, understand monogamy as a consensual autonomous decision between two people. But as long as those two are also polysexual ethically (like yourself) then there is no conflict between myself and monogamy. We pretty much agree here.
That's what I'm getting at. Your problem is not with monogamy, but the social institutions which try and enforce it as the only acceptable kind of relationship.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 20 2006, 01:17 AM
That's the thing, it's not unnatural to have only one partner. LOTS of animals do this, and they don't even have social institutions perpetuating it. When stripped of things like marriage, a monogamist relationship is just that, two people seeing each other exclusively. It's not unnatural at all.

No animal maintains a single partner (full stop) though a few select creatures hold on to bring up a child for a little while.


There's really only one.

I can think of a couple.


That's what I'm getting at. Your problem is not with monogamy, but the social institutions which try and enforce it as the only acceptable kind of relationship

Well, Monogamy that's not forced, or polysexuality only involving two people, isn't monogamy.

[Messiah]

Whats realy anti-revolutionary is telling other people how to live and choose their mates. We shouldnt impose our values onto other people.

Bingo. QFT.


No animal maintains a single partner (full stop) though a few select creatures hold on to bring up a child for a little while.

I'm pretty sure this is bull, frankly.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 20 2006, 07:27 AM
No animal maintains a single partner (full stop)
I think the figure is about 3% of all the types of critters on this planet are capable of having monogamist relationships.


Well, Monogamy that's not forced, or polysexuality only involving two people, isn't monogamy.
:rolleyes: I'm not even going to bother with this shit anymore.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:38 AM

Whats realy anti-revolutionary is telling other people how to live and choose their mates. We shouldnt impose our values onto other people.

Bingo. QFT.

I was attacking monogomy as an enforced social norm, not as an individuals sexual choice.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jul 13 2006, 08:42 AM--> (Additives Free @ Jul 13 2006, 08:42 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 05:38 AM

Whats realy anti-revolutionary is telling other people how to live and choose their mates. We shouldnt impose our values onto other people.

Bingo. QFT.

I was attacking monogomy as an enforced social norm, not as an individuals sexual choice. [/b]
Your piece certainly doesn&#39;t make that distinction. <_<