It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Monogamy or Polyamory?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:51 AM
Of all the possibilities of pairing up between Human, it is these two possibilities that lie as reasonable, inasmuch as all parties are aware of the nature of the relationship.

Yet, as someone with a deep interest in the structure and behavior of the Human mind, I wonder whether those who seek to justify polyamory are underestimating the sorts of relational complexities - and therefore, dysfunction - that can arise when passions are given the front seat, and people begin to enact their reflexive biases in relationships.

Yet, some people remain unequivocally opposed to the project of monogamy, and I can't help but see their opposition as being more related to the strident enforcement of one moral norm i.e. monogamy, rather than monogamy itself.

It is strange though. It is seemingly believed by many people - yet contraindicated by the realities of others - that people who are emotionally committed to one another feel that sexual commitment is a part of the deal - simply because the extension of yourself into multiple and other relationships tends to generate conflicts of interest, jealousy, resentment, and other forms of interpersonal strife. Furthermore, one may also be granted to accept the claim that people who overcome their negative impulses (which have a characteristic tendency to lead to relational dysfunction) seem to ascend to a higher plane of connection to the one they love and have committed themselves to; monogamy seems to be the deepest commitment of all: that although I am sensitive to the sexual overtures of attractive and attracting others, I sacrifice this desire for the sake of us - and for the children who grow up around us.

According to 2d-4d studies - that is, studies based upon the correlation between androgens (tesosterone) on finger ratio between the second and fourth digits - early modern Humans (Homo Heidelbergensis) were more polygymous than modern humans. Indeed, it is interesting that "androgens" i.e. testosterine, appears to be the determining factor here, and for those who like to invoke 2d-4d studies in relation to polygamy, it is still a popular view in both anthropology and the humanities - especially and above all in feminist theory, which is ironic, because a higher ratio is associated with feminine traits, as in the gibbons, as well as in the Human being.

In a certain symbolic sense, think of the meaning of these two fingers - in terms of what we instinctively associate them with: the index finger, also known as the pointing finger, is instinctively associated with agency (i.e. self initiated), as when I point to something, my point is meant to refer to something else i.e. implies an "intentional stance". The index finger in highly androgenized species is larger, indicating symbolically the selfish pursuit of power. On the other hand, in cooperative species like gibbons and bonobos, the ringer finger "ascends ahead", the differences between male and female level out, and the individuals incline towards monogamy - at least in the Gibbon.

The Bonobo is a very different creature - it has sex all the time, and indeed, many feminists invoke the bonobo as living proof that Humans are born polygamous - although, perhaps, they are being a little too idealistic, as per the general problem of the society we live within, important things like brain size difference between Humans and Bonobos can be occluded by the excitement around Bonobo polygymous activity and the general quiet, calm and cooperative environment of the bonobo.

Psychological Realities

As far as I am concerned, I believe it to be psychologically naive to think a polyamorous orientation wont devolve into a breakdown in one or perhaps all of the relationships in which time, commitment and connection become coveted products. Think honestly for a second about what actually are like: if person A looks better today than person B, a feeling of being unlikable, or less likeable, than person A would emerge. Someone may say "no", but surely the process of repetition - of something that you dislike, don't want, and thus begin to dread, when it occurs again, it begins to wear on you.

So what is this? Is this surety around the ease of polyamory overblown - over-zealous - and over-idealized? This is part of the problem of feminist scholars and other scholars that operate in an epistemologically older model i.e. before the systems revolution of the 80's, 90's, etc, which naively assumes an essential "good", and of course associates monogamy with the patriarchal abuses of Humanities recent past, and thus essentializes the association between monogamy and 'patriarchy', as if an equal-partnership model based in love - and not control - couldn't exist.

But besides this and the tendency to glorify primitive peoples, polyamory avoids some of the subtleties of Human relations that build up over-time - as occurrences, grievances and irritations that hit a threshold and then lead, more likely than not, to relational breakdown and the breaking of a relationship.

The recent rebellion against monogamy strikes me as coterminous - and compatible - with the general attitude towards "truth" (moral relativism), what is good and to be valued (personal success, individualism, material goods) and an inclination towards the sensational, or the "spectacle".

Fantasy trumps reality - pun intended. The belief that polyamorous relationships aren't complicated as hell is occuluded by a culture that promotes its legitimacy, however falsely - it appears plausible to a mind that believes the emotions we feel don't need to be regulated by our conscious minds. Indeed, systems scientists could conceptualize a 3 person plus relationship as analagous to the 3-body problem of astronomy, and any other 3-body problem - a problem because of the complexities it creates.

Indeed, as Human beings continue to sift truth from falsehood, polyamory will likely be naturally de-selected, not by physical force - a disgusting practice of patriarchy - but through simple education in living - and in learning - what the universe offers us in deepening our relation to its meaning.

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:00 AM
How is coercion an exclusive function of patriarchy?

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 07:21 AM
All I know is that a commitment to one person for many years feels good to me. It feels deep, loyal, and special.

However, about polyamory--
Another place on the web I visit has a thread dedicated to polyamory and they seem perfectly happy in their relationships, but jealousy and insecurity can come up every once in a while even in the most "loyal" love circles. They have "systems" to try to make sure nobody gets left out I guess but it doesn't always work. Basically what I'm saying to the OP is, from my outsider view, you're basically right about polyamory.

Just like with monogamous relationships, each one is different.
Poly is not for me.

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 08:35 AM
Just an observation: Many cultures allow more than one formal wife.. The conditions are usually based upon a males wealth.

Cultures who allow one formal wife only; the type "A" high achievers will have one or more minor wives they take care of on the side but rarely do the women meet each other. It all comes down to money in many cases especially in the poorer countries..

The Chinese symbol for disharmony is a house with two women under the roof.. or so I have been told.. and through observations they may be correct... even mothers and daughters seem to go through some rough times before the teen age years get sorted out..

Jealously can take many forms ... Some women who find out about a minor wife blow a gasket not because of heart felt jealously but because of the money being spent on the other woman. Again I am speaking of poorer countries but that is certainly not always the case.

I used to fly with a guy who was a perfect gentleman. He had a wife and 4 kids and provided for them ... On the surface and at their church he was someone to look up to; kind, gentile, never said a cuss word kinda guy..... Because I new this guy for over 20 years I also knew (we flew together many times) he had a long time girl friend that he stayed with when he was on a trip or needed a room to stay at when staying at his home flying base. His resident home was over two hundred miles away so he had to commute to work. If he were flying a three day trip he would come down the day before and be with his girl friend.. The girlfriend knew everything but the wife and kids never knew anything even after his death.. I have known several guys who had home wives and wives/girlfriends who were just like wives when they were on the road..

As long as everyone is happy and getting along then fine with me. Muslims in some of their home countries can get rid of a wife by saying they divorce them 4 times...(or used to be able to, dunno any more). I will say when TSHTF it is usually not pretty and people get hurt... Over here a very important piece of the males body can and has been cut off more than once and thrown into a yard where a duck or a dog eats the offending member... Carnivorous ducks ...who would have thought ?

Anyway IMO if you have a good mate who is truly part of you and your best friend then that pretty little strange one will just bring more problems than she is worth.. But that is just me.

edit on 727thk17 by 727Sky because: ..

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 09:18 AM
IMHO, I don't think men are naturally monogamous. We force it on ourselves because of societal pressure. This is not to say that men can't and don't have special feelings for one woman in particular, but most normal men certainly would play the field if they could without consequence regardless of how much they may love their spouse.

With gay marriage being legalized, it won't be long before polygamy and other forms of relationships are as well.

I don't really have an issue with someone who is able to manage multiple relationships. If all parties are consenting adults, WGAF? Whatever floats your boat.

It is becoming more common among very wealthy men to just be single with multiple women (who are all aware of each other). P Diddy has been in multiple serious relationships with all the women knowing. Floyd Mayweather basically keeps a harem. These "relationships" work because the men are just looking for physical satisfaction while the women are looking for financial stability.

I'm sure there are some small set of people who are truly in love with multiple people, but for the vast majority who engage in these types of relationships, I think they are just swingers/promiscuous types trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 12:03 PM
If everybody knows and is happy with a situation, then its fine. Cheating on your partner is not ok, its not about being polyamorous, but a cheating lying manipulative piece of excrement.

new topics

top topics

log in