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.
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
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
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