Is monogamy a bad thing?

It’s one of the most important parts of a relationship. Commitment, trust and sacrifice are required in a healthy relationship. If you step out , you violate everything a relationship is about.

Unless you’re in a open relationship. Not smart with all the STDs.

Not a bad thing. It’s safer for your health, it’s easier in many ways, it’s more stable for all family members including children.

A condom is all it takes to bring the STD risk under control, so to me that’s a weak argument.

^When you kiss your wife after she’s had another man’s dick in her mouth, you’ll find the condom during Intercourse was fairly irrelevant. As you vomit in disgust, having heard this news, reexamine the weakness of my argument. Maybe you can find some coupons for valtrex…

Okay so it’s not for you, but not for STD reasons…

If you’re a man I feel very sure you have no idea how many people do have STD problems. Men never discuss these things from what I’ve noticed.

^^ Do you got data?

Hard to find one site with all the info. It doesn’t take long to skim each link below though if you’re really interested.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report-press-release.html

http://www.popsugar.com/love/How-Common-STDs-America-7492582

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html?client=safari

79 million people in the US with HPV. That’s a huge number. The vaccine will probably help it come down over time.

24 million positive for herpes.

In reality, as we know from divorce statistics, the number of partners people have over time, and the number of extra-marital affairs, strict monogamy is rather rare in our US society and in most societies.

As Dan Savage has coined the term “monogamish”, where two people marry and stay together for the duration, but work out how each may step out a bit in a manner that does not destroy the relationship.

@zenvelo I wonder how the stats play out? Are the marriages that last more likely to be monogamous? Most of the cheated I know have had more than one divorce. I do know some marriages that stay together through the cheating, but those marriages are in the minority in my experience.

@zenvelo Yes, the reality is pretty much ‘poly’ already but monogamy remains the expectation, the ‘ideal’ in our western cultures. I think this expectation can be destructive, in the sense that many divorces happen as a result of cheating while in fact the two could very well have lived happily ever after together by just turning the occasional blind eye to their partner’s extra-conjugal affairs…

There is nothing wrong with monogamy, if all involved parties consent and follow the rules they set for themselves.

There is nothing wrong with polyamory, if all involved parties consent and follow the rules they set for themselves.

There is nothing wrong with open relationships, if all involved parties consent and follow the rules they set for themselves.

The problems occur when people break the rules.

@olivier5 – I take exception to the idea that monogamous couples should simply “allow cheating”, or “turn a blind eye”.

Sex has very real consequences, and adults in a committed relationship who wish to have a nonmonogamous relationship need to be able to discuss those things. All parties involved in a nonmonogamous relationship – not just a single married couple, but their other partners as well – should be fully informed of what the boundaries of the relationship are. They should have real conversations about being tested for STIs, and they should have real conversations about what should happen, should a child be conceived.

Safe. Sane. Consensual. Those are the three basic rules.

Simply having a dalliance that you mean to go nowhere is fine, if your partner is okay with it, but what if that other woman thinks she’s in a real relationship? That woman has the right to say “I do not wish to dally with a married man.” She also has the right to meet your wife and say, “I really like her, and I’m not looking for anything serious, so sure we can play around sometimes.” All parties must be able to consent to what they are getting into.

Do what you do & enjoy the shit out of it…fuck labels & conformity

@JLeslie Okay, so monogamy helps keep STDs under control. Good practical point.

@Seek Polyamory does seem to be very much about building long-term relationships in a consensual manner. It’s very different from casual sex and/or cheating.

I take exception to the idea that monogamous couples should simply “allow cheating”, or “turn a blind eye”. Sex has very real consequences, and adults in a committed relationship who wish to have a nonmonogamous relationship need to be able to discuss those things. All parties involved in a nonmonogamous relationship – not just a single married couple, but their other partners as well – should be fully informed of what the boundaries of the relationship are.

That’s theory. In practice these things are often hidden, and discovered post factum. And then a decision has to be made by the one cheated upon: should I stay or should I go? I am saying that IN PRACTICE, we are often better off turning a blind eye than going into divorce, at least if the offence is rare. But that goes against the dominant cultural current.

Why is one better off avoiding divorce, if their partner has proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and incapable of having an adult discussion on extramarital sex?

Divorce sounds, to me, much preferable to waking up with an incurable STD or a bastard child you didn’t sign up for because ignoring a glaring trust issue in your relationship was so much easier than paperwork.

@Seek Divorce sounds, to me, much preferable to waking up with an incurable STD or a bastard child you didn’t sign up for because ignoring a glaring trust issue in your relationship was so much easier than paperwork.

It has nothing to do with paperwork, and a lot to do with the fear of solitude. The choice is usually not between a) being with an always untrustworthy person and b) being with an always trustworthy person. Usually the choice is between: a) being with a person who is most often trustworthy but not always, and b) being alone. That’s where it becomes difficult, and where many people who took the high road later come to regret it.

Bad for some people, not bad for others. Human beings are too varied to take such one-size-fits-all approaches to complex issues like sexuality and relationships.

I don’t believe monogamy a bad thing, and for most people it is quite probably a necessary thing. Human nature being what it is, the baggage we carry concerning things like possessiveness, jealousy and insecurity push monogamy to the front as the means to coping. I have no idea whether it is societal pressure which enforces monogamy as the norm or individual insecurities about “misplaced” affections that is responsible for the overall acceptance of a single partner as the preferred routine. For those who can manage emotionally to juggle more than a single relationship, congratulations. Most of us probably experience a period of “playing the field”. But as far as I’m concerned, there can be no job more exhausting than trying to juggle 2 or more relationships simultaneously. And infidelity is damned hard work!

These cultures that have polygamy. Can the women leave? Can they divorce if they want to?

@stanleybmanly

Indeed. I mean I can understand the desire to dally around a bit, but I’ve never really gotten these folks who engage in poly relationships (or multiple relationships where the partners are all unaware of each other). Dealing with one person on a relationship basis is enough of a pain in the ass.

Then again, that’s assuming that all involved in the relationship(s) are on an equal basis. The reality, at least from my observations, tends to be that such relationships have one dominant partner while everyone else involved are doormats.

@JLeslie These cultures that have polygamy. Can the women leave? Can they divorce if they want to?

It depends which cultures but a rough answer would be that polygamy in general implies a lower status for women than for men, e.g. in Islam or in the Mormon culture.

Let’s bear in mind that many Western countries have outlawed polygamy entirely, so the only information we’ll have on legal poly marriages will be from countries where women are systematically oppressed.

Poly relationships in the US cannot be legally binding, but are certainly not subject to the same restrictions as polygynous marriages in, say, Saudi Arabia.

@Seek Even in America, culturally, it’s likely, the women in a polymarriage have less power. It could be they have less financial power, or that they have peer pressure in their group to stay married.

I do think some poly marriages and relationships probably work fine, I just think it’s difficult to get a real read on how happy and successful they really are.

Even in traditional monogamous marriages there can be pressures to stay together from outside sources, so I’m not saying there isn’t all sorts of fuzzy lines when analyzing the topic.

@JLeslie – Again, the popular perception of polygamy is that of a restrictive religious situation. That is not all (or even most) of the poly relationships that exist in America.

It’s just that consensual polygamous partnerships don’t get reality TV shows.

http://polyadventures.com/

What man hasn’t fantasized about living in a household of spectacular women who adore him? All I can tell you is that nothing will cure you more effectively of such daydreams than the experience of putting such a setup to the test.

There seem to be some misconceptions about what polyamory is. It’s not the same thing as polygamy, since nobody needs to be married. And it’s not like having a harem since there’s no exclusivity. It’s basically the idea that people can love several people, and that it can be okay this way.

@Seek So, I think the stats are all screwy then. Nothing is probably counted right, because nsny poky relationships are probably in hiding.

I understand the theory. But it’s in the practical application of intermingling multiple sexual relationships that things must come apart. I mean the chances of multiple diverse personalities coming to consensus on any matter is difficult enough, but the balancing of emotions on an issue as charged as sex is about as daunting a long term proposition as one might cook up. To me, it’s the equivalent of the 3 body problem from our bygone physics classes.

There’s no obligation to live under the same roof, so it’s not like everybody needs to agree on everything all the time. But I agree that it looks complicated. This said, monoamory is in fact almost impossible: it’s almost impossiblle to love only one person forever.

@olivier5 “it’s almost impossiblle to love only one person forever”

Where on Earth did you ever come up with that absurd notion?

The theory of polyamory appeals to me but what I’ve seen in my immediate circle is that it is enormously complicated in practice. All of the people that I’ve known who’ve been in polyamorous relationships have ended up in what is essentially sequential monogomy. Seems easier to just try and deal with one other person’s emotions/needs at a time.

@Darth_Algar What absurd notion are you talking about?

Not for me, I prefer a nice bit of oak

Monogamy… Polygamy… And even promiscuity are all mating systems. We all seem to gather what monogamy means, so I’ll skip that part and simply say that I don’t think monogamy is harmful itself. I do believe that the expectation of monogamy can be harmful, as monogamy is not appropriate for all people all the time. I know several people who have developed very happy, very functional poly relationships… They would be a lot less happy and functional, if their relationships were “missing pieces.”

I do want to discuss what polygamy really is, though. First of all, as has been pointed out, polygamy is not the same as polyamory. Since we seem focused on the -gamies right now, I’ll focus my discussion on polygamy. Polygamy actually consists of a variety of mating systems including polygyny, polyandry, and polygynandry. Polygyny refers to the marriage of one man and multiple women. This is the most common and accepted form of polygamym. Next there’s polyandry, where a woman marries multiple husbands. This form of polygamy is generally rejected by religions who otherwise are accepting or at least acknowledge polygyny. Finally there is polygynandry, in which two or more males have an exclusive relationship with two or more females.

Is monogamy or polygamy better? I have no idea. My guess would be that it depends on the partners involved in each situation. If all parties in the proposed situation are in agreement, I see no reason why either would be a bad arrangement.

In either case, it’s important to realize that love is actually not always a factor. Monogamy and polygamy can refer to exclusive sexual relationships… Or they can refer to romantic involvement… Or both.

I suppose, if I were to argue exclusively for one or the other… I’d have to say that poly relationships tend to lend themselves in a more powerful way to things like communication, openness, understanding, trust and acceptance from all involved… And I happen to feel that these things represent the cornerstone of any positive romantic relationship.

Yes, polyamory is in theory more healthy but the devil is in the practical details. It could get a bit iffy. One would have to avoid a situation where two main (or semi-permanent) partners are keeping scores and instrumentalising the more anciliary (or temporary) partners. As in Dangerous Liaisons, or as in Beauvoir and Sartre’s relationship.

The situation you described sounds like one borne out of jealousy… Which is unhealthy and should probably be avoided in any romantic relationship. Jealousy isn’t just a problem for poly relationships.

@olivier5 “What absurd notion are you talking about?”

The one I, you know, quoted.

@Darth_Algar And where did you get the absurd notion that what you quoted was absurd?

@JoyousLove Not just jealousy but competition.

Basically, i’m saying the only way it can work is when the partners are NOT telling each other too much detail. Ambiguity is better than transparency in this case.

That’s called “cheating”, and it is unhealthy.

It’s not cheating if it’s the rule, by definition….

@olivier5: I would tend to disagree. The friends I’ve previously mentioned, who have seemingly successful poly relationships, share everything with each other. There is no secrecy, no competition, and no jealousy. There is simply love and understanding.

I feel like the situation you’ve described would only happen with certain personality-types. It’s possible that such people are simply not suited for a poly relationship. However, as has been said before.. There can be no one rule for all people, when it comes to something like this. Humans are simply too varied… Too individual… For such a rule to work.

Okay you win by empirical strength. You know poly people, and I don’t know any. Or rather the only couple i know who goes anywhere near are a gay couple. Very nice folks and great friends. They used to be mono but are in this phase right now where there are also a significant other on one side and a few Tinder friends on the other side. But there again, it’s painful to them or at least to one of them (the latter).

Yes, it’s impossible to generalize. I do think though that human nature is inherently selfish and competitive and that this often trump our natural capacity/propensity for empathy. If humans are fundamentally competitive animals (like all mammals are), then one can imagine that within any web of poly relations, a few dominant figures will progressively emmerge, who have been in the band long enough to share some supremacy over decision making. Typically, that core relationship within the poly relationship is made of two or more rarely three persons.

Like in Liaisons Dangereuses, Valmont and Merteuil. Or Sartre and Beauvoir. Now the issue with these two (very froggy, sorry) was not so much jealousy in the classic sense. It’s more that they came to compete with one another, playing inside games which their “contengent loves” knew nothing about, each core partner wanting to keep a parity with the other in terms of number of lovers.

So i think one of the rules must be: We don’t compete- it’s not about numbers but quality. Another one: disclosure rules and decision making equally shared with all partners.

I mean, there are know pitfalls one would need to guard against. It’s a contract so some rules apply.

It sounds a little bit like a sexual utopia to me but since it’s small size, i’m ready to accept that it works for some well-disposed, non-selfish people. In fact it’s quite pleasant to think that such partnerships can exist and prosper. It gives me hope ;-)

@olivier5: Based on your description of the couple in question, I have to wonder if they arrived in their present situation through communication, understanding, and mutual agreement… Which is the cornerstone for any successful relationship (poly or otherwise). It sounds to me like at least one of them isn’t content with the situation and should probably make an effort to change the situation.

I would disagree that human nature is inherently more selfish and competitive than it is empathetic and cooperative. Competitiveness and Cooperation are tendencies that humans clearly have in abundance. It’s less a question of which tendency is more dominant than it is a question of how these behaviors interact and which conditions promote one approach or the other. I am certain that I can provide at least as many examples of humans cooperating as you can of humans competing. It may be true that dominant figures emerge in some poly relationships, but I would balk at allowing you to state that this happens within “any” poly relationship. I also would tend to disagree with the idea that most/all/typically there is a “core relationship” in poly relationships.

The examples you’re providing, Liaisons Dangereuses, Valmont and Merteuil, and Sarte and Beauvoir, do not describe healthy behavior for any relationship (mono or poly). Playing inside games in an attempt to “beat” the other party is bound to cause issues. As is a lack of communication with their “contingent loves”.

The rules you suggest sound like solid rules for any relationship (poly or otherwise).

In theory, any relationship requires some sort of mutual understanding/agreement or “contract” for it to be viable.

I’m curious what you mean about it being a sexual utopia… As with monogamous relationships, many polygamous relationships have a powerful emotional component that has nothing to do with sex. In many situations, sex isn’t even a factor (asexuals engaged in either type of relationship, for example). I’m glad you’re willing to accept that poly relationships may work for people who are of a character/personality type that doesn’t conflict with the nature of such a relationship. In return, I’ll acknowledge that monogamous relationships probably work for people who are of a character/personality type that doesn’t conflict with the nature of such a relationship as well. :)

Yes, it’s pretty much the same rules for poly or mono. Thanks for spotting that.

In many situations, sex isn’t even a factor (asexuals engaged in either type of relationship, for example).

I don’t follow here. For me, platonic relations are not really serious. If I flirt with a girl in the office but never touch her, then it’s nothing to my monogamous relationship. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Are we poly if my wife loves Brad Pitt and I am infatuated with Eva Green, for instance?

@olivier5: Any time.

Platonic relationships may not be serious for you, but for an asexual who is not aromantic, I assure you that platonic relationships are very serious. Just because an affection for someone is strictly platonic does not mean it has any less value. It just means that there is not a sexual component to the attachment. Also, in my experience, flirting with others while in a monogamous relationship often leads to the other partner feeling injured, at least if they become aware of the activity… And if they don’t find out and therefore aren’t injured, I would say that it still has an effect on the relationship. In that it adds an element of deceit to that relationship, at least on your part. Does that make sense? That being said, flirting with someone is not the same as having platonic love for them. Platonic is an adjective and means (of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual.

You’re now confusing types of love. There are many forms of love and even infatuation. I assume that in the context of your question that your wife loves Brad Pitt from afar? As in she admires him? Do you think that sort of love is the same as the romantic love that she experiences with you?

I am not really trying to confuse different types of love, on the contrary I am trying to understand the differences. I am asking: What are the conceptual boundaries of platonic love, and how different is it from ‘loving’ an actor/actress, or loving a child, or still having a ‘thing’ in your heart for an ex?

There’s this song by Canadian artist Desjardins: Quand j’aime pour une fois j’aime pour toujours (once I love, it’s forever). I feel very much like what he says in this song, I still love all the girls/women I loved once, and I still think of them once in a while with warm fuzy feelings, including Sylvie whom I met in first grade, and her twin sister Laurence. One of those I met later is dead and I still love her…

Does that make me poly-amorous? Not in my book, because for me, the actual, practical boundary that counts is physical love. Actions. Anything that happens only in the mind of people is immaterial and does not count. E.g. for me to consider I have reason to be jealous, my wife would have to have some physical contact (e.g. a kiss, at least) with a romantic interest of her. Otherwise she can fantacize all she likes, sometimes she has a dream where she’s making love with other guy, and she would never fail to tell me and I might feel a bit miffed but I don’t think I have enough reasons to be jealous in those cases. They don’t really count.

Conceptual boundaries of platonic love… Well I suppose they would be the same conceptual boundaries as love (as a general term), except with the singular addition that there is no sexual component to the feeling.

Love for an actress, child, or even an ex may all be expressions of platonic love. However, love for a wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, or even lover (lover does not automatically mean sexual relations…) can also be platonic in nature. The adjective, platonic, simply means that the love does not have a sexual component to it.

You say you love these people… Love is a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. Are you sure that you feel love for these people? Keep in mind that having an affection for them is not the same as having a “profoundly tender, passionate affection” for them. If not, then having no romantic relationship with these people, you are indeed not polyamorous. Polyamory is the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time. That being said, by the simple definitions of the words involved, if you do feel that profoundly tender, passionate affection for them (aka you are in love), that means you are experiencing polyamory. Whether you act on it or not, is up to you. Love… Amory… It does not require a physical component at all. It is possible to attach a physical component to it, but it is not necessary.

I guess where we’re having difficulty is that I am operating off of the literal definitions of the words, while you seem to be giving them your own “actual, practical boundar[ies]”.

I don’t really believe that words / concepts have a “literal definition”. I think we all define them our way, or don’t, but we all use them in certain ways to mean certain things but there’s no finite set of objective, non-controversial meanings to most words.

The practical boudaries that people use are, IMO, more objectives, if often fuzzy. “Where do you draw the line between concept A and B in practice?” is a question I often find myself asking, because it’s more objective than “how would you defined X or Y?”.

To me, sex represents an important boundary between fantasy and actuality. I agree tghat it is possible to love without sex, but if you remove the sex criteria then I am missing a boundary. Where does “asexual romantic love” starts and ends? Does a passionate yet unconsummed love for Justin Bieber count? If yes, Bieber is at the center of a pretty large poly relationship, involving millions of teenagers.

You define romantic love as “profoundly tender, passionate affection” for a person. But to me that does not draw a good enough boundary with filial love (which can also be passionate and tender). It also does not mention if the feeling is requited or not, which seems to me an important criterion to differentiate between something “serious” and a mere desire or fantasy.

Since I’m not here to defend the honor of dictionaries around the world, I won’t bother arguing about how words are defined.

Without defining the two concepts, how can one “draw a line” between them or even distinguish between them at all?

Asexual love starts when an asexual feels love toward someone and ends when that feeling dissipates (if it ever does so).

I assume that “unconsummed” means unconsummated… And my response to your question really hinges on how you’re choosing to define the words that you used. I could go by the dictionary definition, but I get the impression from your usage that you actually have a different definition than the dictionary has.

I didn’t define romantic love as profoundly tender, passionate affection, I provided the dictionary definition of love in general as that. But let’s hear your definition of love in general, as well as romantic love (which is actually a silly term, now that I think about it… Romantic is an adjective that simply means conducive to or characterized by the expression of love… So in theory, all love may be romantic love… Even filial love), and filial love. Because again, without definitions of the terms, how can we distinguish boundaries between them? Also, I tend to disagree with what I sense to be your concept of the difference between love and “mere desire or fantasy”. Love is not a conditional feeling toward someone… It does not have the requirement of reciprocation. I feel like the important criterion that you’re using to differentiate between something serious and something that is just desire or fantasy may be wholly inappropriate.

To me, romantic love is a special kind of love, different from filial love for instance, and involving at least a desire for sexual intimacy if not necessarily its consummation (yes, I meant “unconsummated”). And therefore it DOES imply at least a desire for reciprocation because you need at least two consenting adults for sex.

No romantic lover is happy or indifferent to not being loved in return. One can love the universe and care not for being loved in return, or one can love Justin Bieber and care not for his feelings, but one cannot in my view love someone romantically and not care for whether or not the feeling is requited. That seems impossible to me.

Romantic is an adjective that simply means conducive to or characterized by the expression of love…

It’s historically a reference to romance, i.e. to the literary or poetic portrayal of love. “Romantic love” means something like “love like in the novels”. Note that this puts the concept at a certain variance with real life emotions because novels are fiction.

I didn’t say you wouldn’t care that the love is not returned, simply that you can love someone without them returning it.

So you would define romantic love as having a physical component. If I were to give a definition to this silly term, it would not include a physical component. I am capable of experiencing romance and love, despite my complete lack of desire for sex. For me, there is no physical component to the sensations of romance that I feel.

And yes, there may be (and likely is) a desire for reciprocation. But having a desire does not mandate that that desire be fulfilled. Does that make sense? Just because ______ does not love me, does not mean that I do not love them.

Also, I’d like to know your definition of consummation, since my understanding is that it simply means the point at which something is complete or finalized.

Consummation, in the context of romantic relationships, means to have sex.

there may (and likely is) a desire for reciprocation. But having a desire does not mandate that that desire be fulfilled. Does that make sense?
Yes it does. The criteria is simply: a desire for reciprocity, not its fulfillment. Without such a desire, the love one feels is IMO not “romantic”; it’s some sort of disinterested and intellectual attachement.

I would disagree. Consummation, in the context of romantic relationships that include a sexual component may mean to have sex. However, it must mean something different in the context of romantic relationships that exclude a sexual component. Romance does not inherently involve sex, just as love does not inherently involve sex. Your obsession with the importance of sex in these things seems ridiculous and rather closed-minded to me.

Right. So you agree with me, then, that love being requited is not an appropriate criterion for distinguishing between something serious and something that is simply fantasy. Good. Mission accomplished, there.

Let’s go back to the original statement that I disagreed with, from which this long discussion of platonic, romantic, etc. has sprung… You said that, “For [you], platonic relations are not really serious.”

Could you at least acknowledge that this may not be the truth for everyone? That some people may view platonic relationships as being just as serious as relationships that include a sexual component? Perhaps it’s just you that cannot experience romance without sexual desire? Because since making that statement, you’ve essentially been arguing that people who only experience platonic love aren’t actually able to experience romance. And frankly, I find that concept to be offensive.

Also, I wonder whether you desire reciprocation from the people you listed yourself as still loving… Because by your own definitions, if you don’t desire that reciprocation, the love you feel for them is “some sort of disinterested and intellectual attachment.” This seems at odds with the, “warm fuzzy feelings,” you described.

I appreciate this exchange, the best I had here since I landed. Let’s not argue too much. It’s okay to agree to disagree, no?

Let’s go back to the original statement that I disagreed with, from which this long discussion of platonic, romantic, etc. has sprung… You said that, “For [you], platonic relations are not really serious.” Could you at least acknowledge that this may not be the truth for everyone?

Well, I have done so by using terms like “to me”, “in my opinion”, etc. I’m talking of my own boundaries here, and how I would feel without an important defining criterion for romantic love if carnal desire was taken out of the equation.

you’ve essentially been arguing that people who only experience platonic love aren’t actually able to experience romance.

I guess fundamentally, I have a problem with the idea of asexual love. I can accept the idea of a romantic love where there is sexual desire but not action for some reason (e.g. distance, impotency, whatever). Abelard and Eloise, Romeo and Juliet, Leila and Majnoon, etc. I cannot however understand the idea of a romantic love where there would be not even any physical desire to touch the loved one, to embrace, to kiss, to caress, to hold hands. That’s too intellectual and etheral to me. It’s not the real deal in my book.

Having no sexual desire does not mean having no desire for physical contact. Many asexuals enjoy touching, kissing, embracing, caressing, and holding hands. However, even when there is not any sort of physical component, the emotional component remains. In addition to the intellectual, etc.

@olivier5 – most of your examples of love come from popular music and literature, not real life. It’s understandable that you would not be able to understand asexual relationships if you’ve never been exposed to them. However, there are many people living in perfectly happy asexual relationships. If you’d like to read more about the asexual spectrum, this is a great website.

@Seek: Thanks for providing helpful information.

Ok. Now if we count platonic relations and exes we keep under our skin, my couple is in fact a pretty large poly. I didn’t know that. Takes some adjusting to…

Why not? It’s just another perspective to love. Perhaps a more accurate one.

I don’t understand asexuality though. If i kiss someone of the right type, desire fires up subito presto and i always assumed everyone was like me.

What do you make of the Freudian argument that sexual desire could be unconscious in asexuals? IOW, asexuals could be seen as people with a repressed sexuality. Freud sees libido as primal, not dispensable, but often repressed in western cultures.

Freud is widely and thoroughly discredited.

^^ Is that true, really?

Did you know that diminished/lost libidos occur naturally? There is an inherent difference between people who repress their sex drive and people who simply do not experience that drive for sex. Additionally, I have to question anyone who would try to make an argument by using Freud as a credible source.

Freud also hypothesized that a repressed memory of an early childhood sexual abuse or molestation experience was the essential precondition for hysterical or obsessional symptoms, with the addition of an active sexual experience up to the age of eight for the latter.

He believed that cocaine was a cure for many mental and physical problems, and in his 1884 paper “On Coca” he extolled its virtues. Between 1883 and 1887 he wrote several articles recommending medical applications, including its use as an antidepressant. He narrowly missed out on obtaining scientific priority for discovering its anesthetic properties of which he was aware but had mentioned only in passing. (Karl Koller, a colleague of Freud’s in Vienna, received that distinction in 1884 after reporting to a medical society the ways cocaine could be used in delicate eye surgery.) Freud also recommended cocaine as a cure for morphine addiction. He had introduced cocaine to his friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow who had become addicted to morphine taken to relieve years of excruciating nerve pain resulting from an infection acquired while performing an autopsy. His claim that Fleischl-Marxow was cured of his addiction was premature, though he never acknowledged he had been at fault. Fleischl-Marxow developed an acute case of “cocaine psychosis”, and soon returned to using morphine, dying a few years later after more suffering from intolerable pain.

Freud believed that the function of dreams is to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awaken the dreamer. In Freud’s theory dreams are instigated by the daily occurrences and thoughts of everyday life. His claim that they function as wish fulfillments is based on an account of the “dreamwork” in terms of a transformation of “secondary process” thought, governed by the rules of language and the reality principle, into the “primary process” of unconscious thought governed by the pleasure principle, wish gratification and the repressed sexual scenarios of childhood.

According to Freud, “Elimination of clitoral sexuality is a necessary precondition for the development of femininity, since it is immature and masculine in its nature.” Freud postulated the concept of “vaginal orgasm” as separate from clitoral orgasm, achieved by external stimulation of the clitoris. In 1905, he stated that clitoral orgasms are purely an adolescent phenomenon and that, upon reaching puberty, the proper response of mature women is a change-over to vaginal orgasms, meaning orgasms without any clitoral stimulation. This theory has been criticized on the grounds that Freud provided no evidence for this basic assumption, and because it made many women feel inadequate when they could not achieve orgasm via vaginal intercourse alone. Initiating what became the first debate within psychoanalysis on femininity, Karen Horney of the Berlin Institute set out to challenge Freud’s account of the development of feminine sexuality. Rejecting Freud’s theories of the feminine castration complex and penis envy, Horney argued for a primary femininity and penis envy as a defensive formation rather than arising from the fact, or “injury”, of biological asymmetry as Freud held. Horney had the influential support of Melanie Klein and Ernest Jones who coined the term “phallocentrism” in his critique of Freud’s position.

@olivier5: Absolutely. Quite true. For some reading on the subject, see this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=0

Is Freud relevant and interesting? Sure. Did he provide the foundation for the examination of many issues that are of note, today? Absolutely. Were his theories largely sexist, fraudulent, unscientific, or just plain wrong? Indefinitely.

Yes. It’s true. Freud was wrong about nearly everything he ever wrote about in terms of human behaviour. Penis envy, castration fears, oedipal complexes, the whole shebang. Not a lick of actual evidence for any of it, and plenty against.

The best anyone can say about him is that he encouraged talk-therapy, which is beneficial to some people with psychological disorders (though, not all, by a long shot).

@Seek: Much terminology that is in common circulation actually came from Freud’s works… Even if many of his ideas were mindboggingly, catastrophically wrong. Examples being: Mommy and daddy issues. Arrested development. Death wishes. Freudian slips. Phallic symbols. Anal retentiveness. Defense mechanisms. Cathartic release. That being said, he has definitely fallen out of favour in the academic setting. ‘Virtually no institution in any discipline would dare use him as a credible source. In 1996, Psychological Science reached the conclusion that “[T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas.” As a research paradigm, it’s pretty much dead.’

Coining phrases based on evidentially unsound ideas is hardly a great contribution to society.

@Seek: Agreed. Just pointing out the limited ways in which Freud is still relevant.

I buy most of the critiques made to Freud such as a-scientificity and sexism and sure he was wrong quite often but there is still a part of the edifice standing:

- the possibility of unconscious perception, desires and thoughts (consciouness offers only a partial view of the mind)
– the idea that past trauma condition us to avoid certain toughts and behaviors
– the idea that religion is used to repress illicit sexual desires and acts, including in our mind
– the idea that we internalise the voice of our parents and other mentors in some sort of normative mental space whence they ‘speak’ to us
– the idea that myths can carry hidden psychological meaning (applied by Freud to Moses with some success)
– come to think of it, the idea of Moses as a runaway Egyptian priest

- AND the idea (not specific to Freud, arguably) that the behaviors and hormonal states necessay for reproduction (including sex) are to some degree instinctive, written in our mental hardware, in our biology.

In this biological perspective, people can lose their libido due to certain medical conditions or out of tiredness or hunger maybe but the suite of operations necessary for sex is biologically inscribed in us somewhere, and if our condition is treated we can get it back to work.

In biology, sex is almost identical to the definition of life (the capacity to reproduce). And don’t get me wrong: there are all sorts of sexual preferences in the animal and vegetal kingdoms, including ‘gay’ and ‘bi’ ones but rare are the totally asexual species.

Wiki:

Karen Horney (/ˈhɔːrnaɪ/;[2][3] born Danielsen, 16 September 1885 – 4 December 1952) was a German psychoanalyst who practiced in the United States during her later career. Her theories questioned some traditional Freudian views. This was particularly true of her theories of sexuality and of the instinct orientation of psychoanalysis. She is credited with founding feminist psychology in response to Freud’s theory of penis envy. She disagreed with Freud about inherent differences in the psychology of men and women, and she traced such differences to society and culture rather than biology.[4] As such, she is often classified as Neo-Freudian.

It is good for women, children and adolescents. Studies have shown that when women are in polygamous relationships, they experience significant mental health problems. source and 2nd source

Children and adolescents of polygamous relationships had mental health problems, social problems and lower academic achievement. source

@tredk – that’s fine, but where are the studies on polyamory?

Edit, I haven’t researched polyamory.

@tredk: Polyamory =\= polygamy. What I think @BellaB was trying to point out is that you’ve providded studies regarding polygamy vs. monogamy, when the question is discussing polyamory… Which is different. I also think it’s interesting to note that the test samples, at least in the first source you provide, have a significant differential in the age groups.
The first column of numbers represents the results for polygamist relationships, while the second column of numbers represents the results for monogamist relationships.
Age (yr) 41.67 ± 9.22 29.81 ± 8.02
Age of marriage 20.92 ± 4.30 18.18 ± 2.22
Husband’s age 48.98 ± 11.18 25.19 ± 7.14
Husband’s age of marriage 29.34 ± 7.78 24.39 ± 3.80
It would also be worthwhile to determine what sort of polygamist relationships were sampled. It seems quite likely that the results would vary between polygynist relationships, polyandrist relationships, and polyginandrist relationships. My guess would be that the sample primarily consisted of polygynist relationships, which are the most common, but are often a result of (and operate under the restrictions of) religious practice that (is often) degrading to women. As the abstract to the source itself states, “These results are best understood through consideration of the socio-cultural and economic realities facing these women.”

Moving on to source two… I see that this source specifically is dealing with polygynous women (women who are part of a marriage that involves multiple wives and a single husband). I’d be interested in reading and dissecting this source as well, but unfortunately only the abstract is available.

Finally, source 3: This one’s also specifically about polygyny. This source does not indicate what country its data originates from, but it’s safe to assume that it’s somewhere that polygyny is accepted and possibly encouraged by socio-cultural factors. I’d be more interested to see a comparative study that includes each form of polygamy… Preferably sampled from a variety of countries.

@olivier5:From my perspective, Freud may make for an interesting and even credible philosophical or historical source, but in general is not usable as a credible scientific source. He often asked the right questions, but he just tended to fail miserably in so far as providing answers.

-Freud was not the first person to postulate the existence of the unconscious mind or unconscious processes. This concept existed long before Freud and has continued long after his death.
-My understanding of Freudian psychology is that he believed that individuals who had suffered past trauma had a tendency to repeatedly expose themselves to situations reminiscent of the original trauma. With regard to this, Freud believed that the repetition was intended to lead to some sort of mastery, but clinical research/experience has demonstrated that this rarely happens.
-There are plenty of religions which do not have an explicit opinion regarding sex. See Taoism, Neopaganism, Satanism, Unitarian Universalism. And there are many more religions that have no problem with sex, within certain guidelines. In any case, there is a movement (at least among Western interpretations of religions), toward a more relaxed view of sexuality.
-The internalization you describe sounds like the formation of the super-ego, to me. His concepts regarding the formation of said super-ego are fairly sexist… And they don’t provide for the internalization of each parent’s voice, but only the father’s. Since, according to Freud, women do not identify with the father, “their super-ego is never so inexorable, so impersonal, so independent of its emotional origins as we require it to be in men… they are often more influenced in their judgements by feelings of affection or hostility.”
-From a book comparing Jung and Freud’s takes on myths, “Jung’s ideas on myth and religion have made far more of an impact than those of Freud – among scholars, as well as to an even larger extent on the general public. Where Freud remains little more than a joke in the field of history of religion and the study of myth, Jung has made a lasting impression through most of the 20th century, to seemingly fade only in the last decade or so… Jung saw myth and its meaning within the individual psyche. In spite of myths and their components being shared by all members of a society – and essentially by all mankind – their workings are strictly personal. According to Jung, man is on a quest towards self-realization, and myths serve as clues to this process. Although every person has this quest, fulfilling it in various degrees, it is a solo venture, each man for himself. This difference between Freud and Jung can be compared to the generalizations of hinayana and mahayana in Buddhism. The former is to find one’s way to spiritual perfection in solitude, the latter as a joint effort together with people of the same conviction. Freud saw the individual as deeply dependent on society and anxious to conform to it, while Jung saw society as little more than a number of individuals of similar nature.” I tend to agree with Jung’s interpretation over Freud’s.
-I won’t argue that biology plays a part in a person’s sex drive, however, I will argue that it is not the only thing that creates that drive. From the wiki on libido: “Sex drive is influenced by biological, psychological and social factors. Biologically, the sex hormones and associated neurotransmitters that act upon the nucleus accumbens (primarily testosterone and dopamine, respectively) regulate libido in humans.[1] Social factors, such as work and family, and internal psychological factors, like personality and stress, can affect libido. Sex drive can also be affected by medical conditions, medications, lifestyle and relationship issues, and age (e.g., puberty).”

I can verify for you that despite my lack of sexual desire, I have no known medical condition that is preventing it. It is not a result of medications, medical conditions, lifestyle or relationship issues, nor age. So all that’s left are social and psychological factors.

A definition of life as provided by the Biology-Online Dictionary states that life is, “A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.” Reproduction is indeed a part of our definition for life, but it is hardly the entire or even primary portion of it. In addition, being asexual does not preclude the ability to reproduce. It simply indicates the lack of desire to engage in sexual acts.

@olivier5: I’m curious what point you were trying to make with your excerpt about Karen Horney.

^^ That some of the best critiques of Freud came from psychoanalysis, a field he helped create. Eg Jung and Horney were influenced by Freud.

Also that feminism holds a debt to psychoanalysis, Freud’s own misoginy aside.

The guy invented his theories out of thin air but his creativity was useful. It pushed boundaries.

@olivier5: A couple of the best critiques of Freud have come from people who pursued psychoanalysis… Many of them came from people in other fields.

I’m wondering what debt feminist psychology (not the same as feminism, although it is oriented on values and principles of feminism) owes to psychoanalysis as a whole. This branch of psychology was created by Karen Horney in response to one of Freud’s theories. This is like saying that America owes Britain a debt for creating the circumstances that led to America revolting against Britain and subsequently America becoming an independent country. Or that (for Christian believers) humanity owes a debt to the Romans for killing Jesus, which subsequently led to their salvation.

Freud was creative, sort of. His ideas tended to build on pre-existing concepts, but in ways that either simply didn’t make sense and/or which were later proven to be entirely incorrect. But that’s just my opinion (albeit an opinion that is based on scrutinization of the historical and empirical evidence).

I’d also be interested in hearing your rebuttal to the rest of what’s been said between your most recent post and your post before that.

Many more than a couple. And yes, the US owes a cultural debt to Great Britain. And to France for that matter, and to Spain and to the German Jews and all the American native nations and the Irish and what not…

Me think this thread is not the proper place for a detailed review of Freudian thought… Why don’t we start another thread about that?

You’re welcome to, if you would like.

^^ okay.

@tredk [Monogamy] is good for women, children and adolescents

Intuitively, monogamy is better for women and more egalitarian gender-wise than polygamy. Your Syrian study seems to confirm that. Ask Muslim women and they’ll give you an earful.

@olivier5: Polygyny is just one form of polygamy… There are forms where the woman dominates the relationship and there are forms where there is a mixture of men and women. The studies she mentions seem to deal exclusively with polygyny, which is typically promoted by cultures/religions that suppress women’s rights. It’s really not surprising to me to find that women in such environments are not very happy. The form of polygamy most likely to be egalitarian in nature is polygynandry. And frankly… I’m aware of (on a personal level) several monogamous relationships that are hardly egalitarian in nature.

Polygyny is NOT “just one form of polygamy”. It is THE MAIN form of polygamy, accounting for something like 99% of the cases worldwide.

“Overall, of the 1,231 cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.6 percent are classified as polygynous, 15.1 percent as monogamous, and 0.3 percent as polyandrous.” – Psychology Today

I guess, then, that we can say that the MAIN form of culture is also polygynous.

Also, since over 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth are extinct (over five billion species, in case you’re curious), we can also say that the main status of species who have lived on earth is extinction.

Let’s see… Over 95% of all currently described species on Earth are invertebrates… So the main type of species on Earth must be invertebrates (since the only other option at this level of classification is vertebrates, which only amount to 4.8% of the species on earth. And we can also surmise that the main type of invertebrates are insects, since they hold the majority in that classification…

I’m sure we can make other comparisons as well.

Depends how you count. If you take demography in consideration, which is what i consider best in this case, then monogamy may still be in the majority.

Numbers matter to me. I don’t think they should be ignored just because we don’t like what they say.

Let’s see… Demography is the study of statistics such as births, deaths, income, or the incidence of disease, which illustrate the changing structure of human populations.

I don’t really see how considering these items would change the results of comparing 84.6% of cultures to 15.1% of cultures. Could you please explain?

By “demography” i meant “the actual number of people concerned”. Counting people is relatively straightforward but counting cultures seems more prone to argument. What counts for a “culture” exactly? How many “cultures” exist in the US? Is the gang culture one of them? What about WASPs, or the gay and lesbian folks? Are they counted as one or several cultures?

Counting people is also fairer than counting cultures, in this particular case, given that the discussion is centred on, well, people. Polyandry concerns so few people worldwide that it’s almost negligeable, other than to remind us that it can exist.

Sorry, i’m a pragmatic person.

Pragmatically, if the only places where plural marriage is legal are places where religious polygyny is practiced, the statistics would naturally favor polygyny in the numbers game.

It’s kinda hard to get statistics on relationships that are not recognized by census records.

Hey, @olivier5… Could you give me your source for the statistic regarding polygyny as a portion of polygamy? I’m curious to see how that percentage was arrived at.

As near as I can tell, there is no quantitative data relating to the number of people in the world who are either polygamist or monogamist… Let alone polygynist, etc.

And unfortunately, try as I might, I can’t locate either a list of criteria that were used to define cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook… Nor am I able to locate any sort of list of cultures that were studied. It’s been a rather frustrating search. I did find several general explanations for how culture is defined from an anthropological perspective.. It is the closest thing that I can find to a standard definition for culture, even though the text that I draw the definition from explicitly acknowledges that there is no singular standard definition for culture. The text states that, “most alternatives incorporate the Boasian postulates as in the case of Bates and Plog’s offering, which,: is, “Culture: The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning.”

So a culture would be any group that has those features to it.

Also, I feel it important to point out that someone who is married more than one time (though not simultaneously… Assume first spouse died) is actually practicing what is called serial polygamy .

Additionally, someone who seeks sexual relations outside of their partnership is also practicing a form of polygamy… As is the person who has multiple partners, but is married to none of them.

So I feel like the number of people who actively participate in one form of polygamy or another may be significantly higher than your anticipating.

Anyways, I’d like to see your statistical source, please. :)

Ew, typos… You must excuse me… I haven’t slept all night. I put a colon, instead of a quotation mark after “which” and before “is”... And I said “your anticipating” instead of “you’re anticipating”. Please pardon my crimes.

It was a guessestimate. Let’s give a better estimate, focusing on the largest cultural groups.

China is on the whole monogamous except i suppose the 10 ml Uyghurs (negligeable). So that’s 1.3 bl people potentially monogamous right there.

Polygamy became illegal in India in 1956, uniformly for all of its citizens except for Hindus in Goa where polygamy is legal, and for Muslims.

Number of non-muslims in India =~ 1 bl people (Hindus in Goa =~ negligeable?).

Then Christiandom. That’s about 2.4 bl people.

Chinese + Hindus + Chistians = 4.7 bl = ~ 67% of world population potentially monogamous (that’s likely a low estimate of the real total).

The main potentially polygynist group is Islam. Potentially because the actual polygynist falilies are in fact a minority in the Muslim world. Total Muslim pop =~ 1.7 bl people.

Other polygynist cultures in Africa and elsewhere =~ 300 ml people at most?

Thus an estimated 2 bl polygynists in this world, or 28% of world population.

“According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous and 4 had polyandry.[5]” That seems pretty small. Even a broader definition as used in A Survey of Non-Classical Polyandry by Kathrine E. Starkweather yields only 50 odd cultures, and all seem unknown micro tribes… I doubt there is more than a few millions polyandrists in this world.

So you’re saying that 1.3 billion people in China don’t practice any of the forms of polygamy that I described…? Serial polygamy or otherwise?

And obviously, since polygamy is illegal in India… No one does it, right? Prohibition does have a long track record of success.

I’m curious what a Christiandom is…? Perhaps you meant Christendom. Yeah, that’s gotta be it. Oh yes… Certainly no Christian ever pursues extramarital affairs, entertains more than one mistress at a time, or divorces and then marries someone else. That never happens.

Certainly there aren’t any non-religious folk around the globe who participate in any of the types of polygamy that I described. Nah… That wouldn’t make sense… Right?

I don’t get where you get off “estimating” all these figures and completely disregarding about ⅓ of what I actually said.

Bottom line: there are 7+ billion people on this planet. For polyandrists to account to 1%, they would need to be 70 million. That’s about my country’s population (france). Where, in which countries do you find polyandrists by the dozens of millions, pray tell?

The largest population group cited in A Survey of Non-Classical Polyandry is “Mongolians”. The total population of Mongolia is 3 ml.

I’ve travelled the world and the seven seas, JL. I’ve talked with thousands of people in 50+ countries, and i don’t think I’ve ever met a single polyandrist…

OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE.

If the practice is not legally recognized you will not see them accounted for in the population statistics

For the eight hundredth time.

I’d quote Seek, but I don’t think it’s necessary. I’m certain you understand how frustrated I am becoming with you.

I am not talking about polyandry. I’m talking about serial polygamy, polygamy in the form of infidelity, and polygamy in the form of keeping multiple (non-serious sexual) partners.

Did you even actually read the response that I was referring to? Why are you continuing to beat the dead horse of an argument that I’m NOT making?

Now… It occurs to me you also didn’t respond to my points that I made in my most recent post. Instead you went off on a tangent about polyandry… Again.

Also, you might want to take a look at what Seek had to say, just now… Because it also rings true. You may see some occurrences in the statistics of places where it is illegal… But it is very likely that most people in such places would not be foolish enough to reveal their status as polygamists.

I said polygynists represent the overwhelming majority of polygamists worldwide, and I gave links and proved it empirically. Polyandrists are a theoretical possibility but demographically, they count for nothing. If you disagree with my figures, provide some other data. If you agree, just say so and we’ll move on.

I also said the monogamists are a majority worldwide. And I gave figures. If you disagree, let’s see your figures.

I’m not sure that it makes much sense to confuse adulterous couples with closet or casual polygamists. In any case, people’s secrets cannot be made into statistics. There are no easy way to count the number of women and men cheating on their spouse in formally monogamist (or polygamist) societies, because many of them would rather hide it. So the issue of how many there are is not a question we can answer empirically. So what’s the use of raising it? It muddles the field and confuses the issue. Idem with people who remary: calling them serial polygamists only serves to confuse the issue. Or if the notion serves another purpose, I haven’t seen you explain it.

One thing we can estimate is the number of people living in societies where polygamy is forbidden, and the number of people living in societies where polygamy is allowed. And the estimate is: About ⅔ of world population for the former, and ⅓ of it for the latter.

Another thing we can estimate or gauge is the number of formal couples, triples, quadruple partnerships, and the number of people being single at a certain time. You just survey a large enough wordwide sample of adults and you ask them how many wives / husbands they have. I don’t have that data but it could be computed. Likely the result would show that a vast majority of the world’s married people are by law monogamous either because their law forbids polygamy or because they haven’t been able to legally marry a second spouse yet.

You should get some sleep. Why do you stay awake all night to talk to a stranger and research all this stuff?... Be briefer, more focused and less sprawling, and I’ll answer more.

It occured to me that we could agree on the following synthesis position:

”De jure, monogamy is the most frequent form of marital union worldwide. However, adulterous couples can be seen as de facto polygamist, and there’s no telling how many there are. And if one counts remarried people as ‘serial polygamists’, then polygamists could be a majority worldwide (or a large minority).”

Something like that would work for you? It has nice shades of grey between mono and poly. I like it. It also attracts the attention back to the thread topic: monogamy is hard in us humans, or we wouldn’t divorce and cheat so often.

So because it uses phrasing like “de jure” and “de dact”, you’re now willing to agree that those two examples represent forms of polygamy?

Anyways, I guess monogamy can be hard for some (most) of us.

Sorry for the legalese but these terms express the difference between what’s supposed to be the case and what happens to be the case neatly and succintly.

I like my summary because it spells its hypotheses without forcing anyone to adhere to them: “if you count remarried folks, then x.”

Yes, it’s tough but with the right person it can be far better than celibacy.