Why Monogamy Is Ridiculous

Scheherazade had the motivation of her life depending on the tale captivating the mind of her audience of one.


Verbose: It certainly is my objective to ever increase my understanding of myself and others, that co-operation and understanding can be advanced, while respectful differences maintained.

Concise: I avoid conflict, where possible. It is almost always possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Congratulations to yourself and Mrs. Fraggle. In 34 years of shared life you have no doubt seen the best and worst of each other, seen it through, and become stronger for the challenges met.

Many happy returns to you both.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Human men and women are natually designed to be complementary. This allows the male-female team to be stronger than the sum of its parts. This complementary nature of male and female was the basis for marriage.

Before the days of premartial sex, men and women needed to relate to potential mates without the compulsions of sexuality. Without the open sex to distract one into linearity, you had to chose your mate based on other complementary features beyond sex; friends. The gears in the machine need to mess better than one sex tooth to be complementary.

Contemporary culture also created the illusion that men and women are the same. Women and son's of such women still believe this lie. The result is the male-female team, even if chosen in the old fashion way, is no longer stronger than the sum of its parts. This has resulted in polygamy appearing to be a better alternative for many men. With the polygamy, you have more parts to approximate the stronger team. Many partners allow you to piece meal one good women together, since there is too much of the same and not enough complementary.

As an example of the complementary nature of male and female, men tend to be visually orientated, while females tend to be more verbally orientated. This natural arrangement is complementary, since it allows the team to cover a much wider spectrum of sensory input data with much higher resolution.

If we could conned men and women into thinking they are the same, and both need to comform to one way or the other, using social pressures such as name calling; senso-phobes, both could be made one or the other, making the team weaker. The team becomes slanted to one side of the spectrum. Now the team is vulnerable. Women are easy to lie to if one makes use of insecurities. Do I look fat in this dress is not a question about truth or reality, but appeasing insecurity, with the sweet lie more acceptable than the hard facts.

A good analogy for this complementary nature of male and female are the catcher and pitcher in baseball. Although both can catch and throw (loosely the same) each is able to do one of the two tasks better. The result is a stronger team.

If culture decided to make both players eithers catchers or pitchers, to help forfill the illusion they are both the same (no hurt feelings and/or the appeasement of insecuity with a male lie ), they can still both throw and catch to make the illusion appear true, but something is lost in terms of the team. Pitchers really can't catch that well and catchers can't pitch that well. The team sucks and breaks up faster.

 

I likewise commend you, Stoniphi, and all others on this forum, or reading here, that recognize the true value of a monogamous relationship.

Beyond the personal benefits (which are many), there is the benefit to society in that this commitment goes beyond the individuals involved and builds stability in the community.

'Pulling double-harness' isn't for everyone, and it takes a lot of practice to balance the traces and compensate for corners.......backing up is a serious challenge, lol......but there's nothing nicer to observe than a 'matched pair', IMO.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

An interesting analogy, wellwisher.

I'm thinking that you are open to the suggestion that in the male/female pairing of compliments (or alternate pairings) that either partner may be the stronger one in regard to skill sets. Observably some men are great stay at home parents while the woman may be an exceptional wage-earner as just one example.

I am quite open to the complimentary skills theory, which does not equate to stereotyping.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agreed. Which is one reason the system where the male is the aggressor and the female is the defender works.

From a modern perspective, yes. But from a biological perspective it makes a lot more sense than a male peacock who sires more children because his tail is the gaudiest.

 

Complements sometimes divide down male and female lines. But there are also places where the complements can go either way.

For example, there are what can be described as introverts and extroverts. Some people are more outgoing and others are more introspective. Males or females can be either. If the team has a thinker and a spokesperson as a complementary pair, this can make for a stronger team. This is not opposite but complementary.

Too much talking can mean not enough thinking; put your foot in your mouth. While too much thinking can mean not enough verbal output; forget to say what you need. If the thinker has a complementary talker, the talker can expand the small words of the thinker to make these thoughts have more reality. The thinker can teach the talker to pause allowing them to keep their mouth more foot free. Each begins to learn from the other since both are good at what they do. But like the pitcher and catcher even as both get better at pitching and catching, they remain complementary allowing the widest spectrum for the team.

Sexually, men tend to like more sex than women. This is why the polygamy option is on the male mind. Sometimes the amount of sex required by the males, becomes too much for the female. This natural complementary pair can be good for female insecurity, since the male impulse and his romance games can be a complement. The male will build up her ego, as the price for sex. If she wanted it as much as him, sex is reward itself. But if X<Y, Y needs to add some extra things to X to make the equation balance. These can be used for the team.

With the female less compulsive about sex as often, the female can help her mate sublimate his strong male desire into other areas, such as his career. She gets what she needs with the extra for the team. The team can benefit by having the excess enthusiastic male dirve and energy directed in others ways; for the team.

In male team sports and gangs, males can be very abrasive to each other. It is common to insult and play pranks on each other. It is aqlso normal for males to abuse each other, because if it doesn't kill you it will make you stronger. This is not the way of females. But having a thick and thin skin pair helps to soften the male and tough up the female. Th full spectrum will help cover the contingencies of life.

 

I appreciate your other thoughts on complementary vs. opposite, and they are good points, but this?

What is this 'illusion' you're talking about?

If you're talking physical stuff, I agree with you - societal differences won't take away the fact that an average guy has more physical strength than an average woman, but you seem to be dividing men and women into specific personality types, which is illusory too.

 

It was the idea that men in general have a 'rape instinct' that pissed me off. That is so out of touch with reality. Most men have a natural revulsion at the idea of raping someone.

 

Precisely...in fact a lot of rapists will force their victims to state that they want sex...which is very warped, sometimes even when holding a lethal weapon on their victim...I can't cite sources atm (may later) but I've read that a lot of rapists will also lose their erections and end up abusing the victim with objects or digitally raping instead; lending support to the idea that it is less about sex and more about profound humiliation and dominance.

Rape is one of the most profound ways you can mess with someone else's head...and it's far less about the urge to procreate than it is about the urge to dominate somebody else.
Plus, unless you hit the uterine jackpot, you're much more likely to fertilize an egg if the woman puts up with you for at least a few months.

 

I would argue that it is a learned revulsion, a conscious choice men make to override their sexual drives for the sake of their morality. Most children are taught from a very early age that violence is wrong, that other's wishes must be respected etc and they promulgate that into all parts of their lives. And most do use that as a basis for a morality in which they can put their ideals over their baser biological drives.

Look at all the education in schools over "no means no." If everyone had a natural revulsion to rape that wouldn't be needed; why would someone persist in a behavior that repulsed them?

Such anti-rape programs are needed to reinforce basic morality, to make it strong enough to overcome our basic biological drives.

BTW there is no "rape instinct" any more than there is a "murder instinct." We have evolutionary drives that cause us to try to have sex. If the person's partner is willing, no rape is involved. It's sex plus violence which, in most cases, defines rape.

 

billvon,

Rape and sexual urges are not the same rape is about being violent. Most men have proper self control so they probably do not have a biological urge to rape. Rape is a learned behavior too.

 

Correct. Rape is a violent sexual act.

If they have no such urge, why would they need to learn self control to control it?

 

Copypasta'd from the following blog: http://stfurapeculture.tumblr.com/post/6116117626/the-real-face-of-rapists-trigger-warning.

From the RAINN page: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

As far as rape being about reproduction?

From another RAINN page:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

 

IIRC it's the only mammal whose description as "monogamous" has ever survived actual investigation - and the jury is still out on any birds, etc.

Many kinds of animals exhibit more than one male mating strategy - it's common to have two or more somewhat discrete or distinguished populations of males, one of which is opportunistic, the other relationship building. Among such animals, it's also common to see the males switch strategies depending on circumstance.

 

What you do not seem to be understanding is the part about rape, while sexual urges are biological, rape is a learned behavior and most men use self-control to prevent this learned behavior.

 

Well, rape is not a learned behavior; every society out there has it as an issue and almost none teach it. No one, unfortunately, has to learn to be violent - as anyone who has worked with children knows.

However, I agree that most men use self-control quite successfully to sublimate that urge into more acceptable outlets (hitting on women in bars, courting them, dating services etc) or into suppressing it it (i.e. celibate men.)

 

billvon,

I did not say that violence is a learned behavior but rape is an act that has to be learned as it is a combination of two separate things violence and sex.

 

?? You really think that if a group of people were raised from infants with no education whatsoever (i.e. no parental role models, no media, no education) they would not rediscover rape shortly after they hit puberty?

Rape is, essentially, sex without consent. Often it requires violence. We have strong drives towards having sex, and we have strong drives towards violence when we do not get our way. We do not have any drives to obtain consent. Obtaining consent IS a learned behavior, one that almost everyone learns from a child. Take that away and you have problems.