I've donned my most flamboyant flame retardant outfit for this post.

Basically, in my opinion humans generally (not individually) are not monogamous creatures.

From this premise I've concluded that for whatever reasons most developing and developed human cultures and societies have idealized sexual slavery with the euphemistic term monogamy.

Joseph Smith took an ancient road when he tried unsuccessfully to institutionalize the sexual slavery of many women to one man sexual rule. It was barbaric and archaic but it at least acknowledged how unrealistic monogamy is for humans.

And I'm not implying it is a male enslaving sexually females thing in being considered a virtue. As I grow older the more absurd this Disneyland of monogamy is. Add it to the long list of natural things about humans that human societies have confabulated into crazy absurdity.

It boils down to sexually commoditizing into property our fellow human beings for a variety of reasons. Fear being central. Fear of disease. Fear of loss of paternity. Fear of emotional abandonment. Fear of losing controlling interest in the body of a mate.

I dislike Joseph Smith because of polygamy but I also appreciate that religions especially the dangerous ones like he founded obviate sexual slavery.

I believe children need caring adults but I think it is fairly obvious the only reason the traditional family is so successful is because it is the one with the most social acceptability levels. Families show children what is acceptable and what is not. Children want to be raised in caring environments and sexual freedom in societies where sexual slavery is condoned and even held up as one of the highest human virtues threatens those caring environments when those same caring adults balk at their chains.

Mormonism takes this to the next level. They ennoble sexual slavery into a form of divinity with only the male able to express their sexuality with any degree of freedom albeit one with which "The Lord" has set their boundaries of who knows how many "eternity" wives.

She gets to have sex with one man? Did you address that issue?

Myself, I am a monogamist. Plain and simple. I'm sure not everyone is, but I am. I couldn't cheat if someone held a gun to my head. I'd take the bullet. I know other people who are that way including men. My dad, my brother, my son. My mother was the same. I have one sister who had cheated several times on her ex-husband. None of the rest of us have. We've been cheated on . . .

It all depends on who you are talking to.

Monogamous is not a word in my ex's vocabulary, even though he sometimes talks about it. ha ha ha ha We all just laugh at him and tell him to quit pretending. His recent boyfriend "cheated" on him, but my ex was also having sex with other men. It all depends on the level I guess. His boyfriend had fallen in love with the other guy. My ex hadn't. Oh well.

cl2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She gets to have sex with one man? Did you address
> that issue?

I don't think either gender is truly monogamous. I think individuals can be and might be from a truly genetic predisposing strengthened by environmental conditions.

I think the term "get to have sex" is telling. We are sexual creatures more or less to differing degrees, inclinations, and sexual organs. It is easy to simplify sexuality to an emotional bond and/or sexual property. Society sanctions control of lots of human inclinations and sex is definitely under its control.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2018 02:51PM by Elder Berry.

Hmm.

I think humans can be, when it comes to who they have sex with, whatever they decide to be. Our "sexual urges" surely aren't "monogamous" (we get 'em around anybody we find sexually attractive, and that's the same for men and women). But we aren't "sexual slaves" to our "sexual urges" :)

Let's face it, "monogamy" was essentially set up as a way for men to be reasonably sure who the father of their children was. If women were prohibited from having sex until monogamously married, and prohibited from anything but monogamy after, a man could be pretty sure any kids she had were his, and his "line" (and whom he gave his inheritances to) was set.

And in most cultures we're familiar with, ever since then, that's been the cultural norm. Mostly out of a combination of inertia and religion, but also out of the wants of people. There's a simplicity and certainty to monogamy, even if it only works out as planned a small percentage of the time. Whether or not it "should" be an ideal that people aim for, I won't argue. It is in most cultures, whether or not it should be. It also has some very practical benefits, whatever its downsides.

There are exceptions, of course (Tahiti when Cook first showed up there comes to mind) :)

I'm OK with monogamy. I just had my wedding anniversary yesterday, and my wife and I celebrated our continuing monogamy. It's an open, honest, caring monogamous relationship that works for us. I don't assume it works for everyone, or feel like I get to insist everybody MUST live that way. And I certainly recognize that if, somehow, the cultural norms and the feelings of my wife allowed it, I might find some attraction in having sex with other people (if I could find some who, at my age, would agree to join in!).

But my wife wouldn't like that. I understand why, and I have no problem not doing things that would hurt her. I certainly don't want to lose all the good things in the monogamous relationship we have, so I'm not going to jeopardize that by sneaking around behind her back for some sexual quickies.

So, yeah, let's talk about it, let's let people CHOOSE what kind of relationships they want to be in, let's think about what's good or bad about monogamy, let's not be like the mormons and insist that one narrowly-defined, proscribed kind of "marriage" is what must be done by everyone (in their temples after you pay your 10%).

But allowing that monogamy isn't for everyone, and that it's "OK" if you don't want to be monogamous, isn't (I think) a reason to demonize it. It's an option. People should have other options, and not have their culture necessarily "shun" them if they choose them. But it's a got its upsides :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But allowing that monogamy isn't for everyone, and
> that it's "OK" if you don't want to be monogamous,
> isn't (I think) a reason to demonize it. It's an
> option. People should have other options, and not
> have their culture necessarily "shun" them if they
> choose them. But it's a got its upsides :)

Choosing is what it is about in my opinion. Like you mentioned that given the option you might choose not to be monogamous. You made a choice where many people probably don't think they have one and so feel burdened by a deeply abiding emotional connection which comes with the condition of monogamy or it ends.

I think we are sort of on the same page. What I'm demonizing is the ideal not the reality of monogamous relationships if you freely choose it knowing that becoming so emotionally involved in it is completely contingent on sacrificing your sexuality to one person.

I don't think we humans realize our sexuality and how it changes and evolves over time. We form deep lasting and abiding bonds with other humans and overtime discover ourselves sexually. What happens when we realize our stronger human natures conflict so fundamentally with our most cherished emotional bonds? It feels like slavery. We have to wear out our bodies until the emotional relationship trumps our sexual natures in providing existential satisfaction in living.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2018 03:07PM by Elder Berry.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's face it, "monogamy" was essentially set up
> as a way for men to be reasonably sure who the
> father of their children was.

I think the other side of that coin is women for whatever reason also buy into monogamy. It takes two to tango in my opinion.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the other side of that coin is women for
> whatever reason also buy into monogamy. It takes
> two to tango in my opinion.

Of course :)

The thing is, patriarchal cultures came up with this arrangement. It was the men who decided on it. The women didn't have any say whatsoever. Until recently, anyway.

That women found some "good" in it, and justified it that way, seems reasonable (after all, they usually could only choose to be in a monogamous relationship, or be a "whore..."). It certainly has its upsides for women, too -- but it was men who came up with it :)

And yeah, we're on the same page, EB.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It certainly
> has its upsides for women, too -- but it was men
> who came up with it :)
>
> And yeah, we're on the same page, EB.

The king must trust only his legit male offspring inherit.

Of course humans aren't naturally monogamous, or we wouldn't fail at it all the time. The problem isn't entirely about sex, this isn't why we freak out about infidelity. It's that the couple is the basic family unit, so if there's infidelity that breaks the couple, there is insecurity for the children and for both the members of the couple. Until recently, that mostly impacted the wife, but women still earn less than men, it's still rougher on them.Clear back when we were all tribal cultures, the tribe was the family unit. We had mates but those weren't always permanent bonds. We relied on our tribe for our security. And truthfully, until fairly recently, it was just a given that men would cheat (and obviously they were cheating with someone) and because women wanted to protect their security, they would look the other way. Now, with more equality, if women are expected to be monogamous, men are expected to be monogamous, too. And, like always, we fail at it, and throw away the marriages over it. It would make a lot more sense to agree to allow for non-monogamy and save the marriage. This means society would need to stop slut shaming women. And it would mean that we would have to have a lot of communication about it. Yeah, and it's fine if people don't wanna, and want to keep their monogamy, because they're always monogamous in all of their relationships. ;)

a nonny mouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And
> truthfully, until fairly recently, it was just a
> given that men would cheat (and obviously they
> were cheating with someone) and because women
> wanted to protect their security, they would look
> the other way. Now, with more equality, if women
> are expected to be monogamous, men are expected to
> be monogamous, too.

I disagree about a black and white, male verse female viewpoint. Humans follow their biology in expressing it anyway they can. Both sexes act sexually when opportunities to express what they want afford themselves. Because men are usually less apt at discretion they get a bad rap.

Joseph Smith created his own opportunities and used terrible discretionary measures.

I'm sorry you got from what I wrote that men are the bad cheaters and women are not. I thought by saying (and obviously they were cheating with someone) that it is clear that both men and women cheat. In our society, men who have a lot of sex are virile and women who have a lot of sex are cheap. So obviously, women hide their infidelity more both for that reason and to preserve the family unit since they have traditionally had more to lose from a security standpoint. I know, as a woman, that women have sexual needs every bit as much as men do, and are as prone to stray.

Thanks for the clarification.

I have mixed feelings about this topic, I am ok with not being monogamous as long as both parties agree and there is no lying or pretending.

I also wonder how satisfying it really is to be able to have sex with anyone you want, I bet it gets old.

And then I feel that the initial excitement of ANY romantic relationship goes away and then some people try to find it in another romantic relationship and the same thing happens.

So do you keep chasing it or settle for what you have or????

Nottelling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also wonder how satisfying it really is to be
> able to have sex with anyone you want, I bet it
> gets old.

I'll never know :)

Based on what experience I *do* have though, I suspect you're right. If there isn't more of an emotional connection (even if the sex is great), it does "get old." And yet, despite me having that experience and knowledge, my "instincts" do kick in and make me lust after somebody attractive I see now and then. If the rest of the brain wasn't working...!

> So do you keep chasing it or settle for what you
> have or????

I know people like that. Who "keep chasing it." They never seem to find what they're looking for. You make a very good point :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Based on what experience I *do* have though, I
> suspect you're right. If there isn't more of an
> emotional connection (even if the sex is great),
> it does "get old." And yet, despite me having
> that experience and knowledge, my "instincts" do
> kick in and make me lust after somebody attractive
> I see now and then. If the rest of the brain
> wasn't working...!

I could be wrong. The sexual spectrum is vastly wider than most people suspect because their corner of it is often so well defined for them with their society's help.

But I guess you could have a mistress who can sexually satisfy you more than your wife and yet you don't feel as emotionally connected to in your life.

Hell, in Henry VIII's lifetime people glorified non-sexual romantic relationships. The art of courtly love doesn't require sexual contact yet Old Henry liked to consummate his loving.

They are always chasing it. My sister has done that. She even admits she ruined 3 really good relationships. I've tried to tell her every time and she never listens. She pretends she does. her last relationship was the guy she dated at age 21 and she went looking for him 10 years ago. She was SO IN LOVE with him. She always told me that they had so much fun together and he still made her laugh. Everyone loves him. But she always looks for something they don't offer and then she regrets it. Now he doesn't want her back after her last break up with him. He's had it. He's just done.

The guy before him is in a long-term relationship now and the woman just moved in with him, which is something my sister didn't want unless he married her, but he didn't want to marry her. He is extremely wealthy, which is what my sister LIKES.

But now she is alone and she can't stand any guy she dates.

My ex is the same. He has been in relationships with some really nice guys and it just isn't enough. He is too into the thrill of the chase. I just don't get it.

I can never handle someone cheating on me, but I did. Stupid me. BUT like my dad, I assume he was interested in other females in his life, but he would never have tolerated my mother cheating on him, so he never cheated on her. IF both people agree to not being monogamous, that's fine. Both have to agree.

Nottelling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also wonder how satisfying it really is to be
> able to have sex with anyone you want, I bet it
> gets old.

Apples.

> And then I feel that the initial excitement of ANY
> romantic relationship goes away and then some
> people try to find it in another romantic
> relationship and the same thing happens.

Oranges.

Why do people insist on confusing sex and relationships?

So here goes...

In today's day and age, here's what I've noticed...

In the real world, girls are into a LOT of things. As a Mormon, guys were the masturbaters, porn consumers, cheaters. But non Mormon girls are just like guys.

And, it seems like a right of passage for college aged girls to be temporary and semi lesbians.

In this open culture, that is what I've noticed. Girls are actually into girl girl interactions.

But guys tend to be possessive. We don't care if girls fool around with each other, but it does bother us if she goes after another guy.

This is just what I've noticed as a single divorced guy.

Believe it or not, a lot of modern girls understand that guys are very visual, and that girls like to be noticed.

I live in a 400k city that has a university and a college. There is a lot of club scene activity here.

2am on a Saturday night, in the freezing cold, drunk girls in spandex on Richmond row.

I can't get past the notion of sexual slavery. I would think that means forcible rape.

Otherwise, when women have a choice, I don't see how it is slavery.

I saw a show on David Koresh, and women travelled great distances to nearly worship the guy, and eventually be one of his wives, even though their husband was there. Were they enslaved?

The assumption is that women get nothing out of the deal. But generally, women are attracted to powerful men with resources and status.

And people forget that it ain't always great for the men. Who is slave to whom? Throughout history, men have died to provide for their wives and children. They are required to "man up".

Karen Straughan explains this in some of her videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqYEVYZgdo

Your sexual expressions with another human are completely tied to that of only one other human. You are their "slave" and they are yours in a tied together sexual "tug"-of-war.

IF you can turn this into something that sexually satisfies both people you have won the lottery and successfully transformed a very non-monogamous creature into a monogamous one.

Domestication at its finest. Increasing plants and animals outputs evolved for their reproduction into your monogamous reproduction in something like "soul mating."

I'm a sexual slave, guys: eat your hearts out :-)

I am as well living in a society that makes humans into commodities.

So when the rich and powerful treat people like sexual chattel we slaves shouldn't be surprised.

What about when you enslave yourselves to each other?

You strengthen our societies delusion that we are monogamous by at least inclination if not nature.