open relationships: monogamous vs poly-amorous

[Phaedrus 209521]

How far have we gone up the evolutionary scale?

 

Not as far as we'd like to think, I suspect :)

 

And haven't "polygamous societies been around longer then monogamous societies?

I know within my own cultural heritage there was second, third ect wives, wife sharing.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure which came first.

 

One thing that tends to be overlooked, though: in general polygamy is actually quite *bad* for the males of the species. The problem is that in order for some males to have multiple mates, others have to do without; and in order to avoid social unrest, they have to be removed from society.

 

In days gone by, there was a very simple method for this: raiding, war, conflict. This had the dual effect of removing some of the competing males (often the weaker ones, as an evolutionalry bonus). And if you were really lucky, it would simultaneously increase the pool of available females.

 

Polygamous societies in the modern world have the same problem, but have had to find new ways of solving it. And so if you look at the FLDS and their belief that a man must have three wives in order to ascend to heaven, they have to somehow remove 2/3 of their male children before they reach marriageable age. As far as I can tell, this is done by creating a large number of very strict rules and expelling those who fail to follow them from the community entirely.

 

I feel like this is something I have to do way more research on!

Public library here I come :p

 

What's that? Is it like Google? :)

 

And actually, your biological theory doesn't really work since from an evolutionary standpoint, you want to spread your seed as much as possible. Instead, monogamy requires an individual to invest its entire reproductive potential on a single mate.

 

Well... from an evolutionary standpoint, what you're actually trying to do is ensure that you maximize the number of your offspring that get to breed themselves. But there's more than one strategy to get your genes into the next generation in the first place; either you can spread your seed as far and wide as possible and hope that some of it bears fruit, or you can sow your seed less widely and take steps to ensure that the fruit that's borne is, in fact, yours. Obviously for males this requires putting time and effort into the maintenance and defense of a harem of as large a size as you can manage - but in quite a few species, the normal size seems to be one.

 

The same considerations apply to care of the offspring once they're born. Do you have many offspring, put little effort into them, and trust to luck/statistics that a few will reach adulthood? Or do you have fewer offspring and put time and effort and resources into ensuring they reach adulthood? This is of course, a continuum rather than an either/or decision, and goes right the way from creatures that produce millions of eggs that are immediately released into the wild (many fish do this), to organisms that invest huge resources in nurturing a very few offspring all the way to the point where they're ready to breed themselves (the obvious example being, of course, Homo sapiens). And while this is always a consideration for the female of the species (which has the advantage of knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that her offspring is *hers*) it's only a consideration for the male if he can be confident that the offspring is his.

 

And, in fact, it's even more complex than that, since what you're really trying to ensure is the continuity of your genetic material. You don't have to have your own offspring to do this; your children contain half of your genes, but your siblings' children contain a quarter of your genes each (on average). And so you can also ensure the continuation of your genes by helping your siblings raise a larger family than they might otherwise manage. This happens in quite a few species, too.

 

Right, that's enough thinking. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to look at boobies :)

[scribbles 6031]

Mmmmmmm. Boobies.

 

The book I'm reading actually discussed the whole tradition of wife swapping and polyamorous groups. Apparently, it first became quite the fad during the second world war, as soldiers and their wives would engage in wife swapping on base. Once the war ended, this "fad" came back with the soldiers and was expanded somewhat as groups engaged in "key parties"; the husbands would all put their house/car keys In a pile, the women would randomly select a set of keys, and whomever they belonged to would be their partner for the evening. This was back around 1953, and was a very popular practice.

 

Sounds almost like something that could be interesting now, given the right group of ladies...

[crillin 54]

I don't want to get into a nature vs nurture debate, but while I agree to some degree that part of it is biological, I think for the most part, how men feel about women, and the kind of relationships we are expected to see as normal, is completely socially constructed.

 

I agree. It is totally a social construct. But that social construct through 1000s of years has brought us to our society today. Order has allowed our civilization to flourish and helped augment our biological drives.

 

But, if you're going to bring up examples from nature, let's look at the number of animals that are actually lifelong mates who stay sexually monogamous: only 3-5%!

 

And actually, your biological theory doesn't really work since from an evolutionary standpoint, you want to spread your seed as much as possible. Instead, monogamy requires an individual to invest its entire reproductive potential on a single mate.

 

Polyamory is actually more "natural" if you want to look at it from an evolutionary perspective. (I put natural in quotes because the whole concept of "natural" or "normal" sexual behaviour and relationships is entirely socially constructed).

 

First, I would disagree. "Natural" or "normal" can be mathematically quantified. It is the mean in a well distributed sample space, ie. it is what the majority people are doing.

 

Secondly, yes! There are far fewer animals in monogamous relationships! However, this is primarily due to their mating strategies as Phaedrus so eloquently summarized below. The fact is, humans have committed to an evolutionary strategy to provide for a few young as best as possible in hopes that their offspring will survive and thrive versus playing the odds that one out of few will make it. You've said this yourself "monogamy requires an individual to invest its entire reproductive potential on a single mate" Simply put, there is far more energy and resources required to raising a single human child since babies are so helpless much longer than any other mammal counterpart.

 

Now, this is my opinion and I don't have facts to back this up, I believe that more people are engaged in polyamorous relations these days due to the fact that we have a social welfare crutch. We have evolved into a society that now dedicates it's resources and time to help raise these children thus allowing the father/mother to engage in these relations with good confidence that their children will survive to the next generation even if one parent does not stick around. There is a reason why women secrete hormones to their partners when they are pregnant. It creates a hormonal change in the man to become more of a docile man rather than a horny, sperm spreading male which is his biological directive. As any female can attest, being pregnant is a very vulnerable state to be in. Both before and after birth, it makes sense if they have a partner dedicated to ensuring her well being and that of her child. A male will instinctly have more interest to support if that child is biologically his. I think evolution has catered to this mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

Well... from an evolutionary standpoint, what you're actually trying to do is ensure that you maximize the number of your offspring that get to breed themselves. But there's more than one strategy to get your genes into the next generation in the first place; either you can spread your seed as far and wide as possible and hope that some of it bears fruit, or you can sow your seed less widely and take steps to ensure that what bears fruit is, in fact, yours.

 

The same considerations apply to care of the offspring once they're born. Do you have many offspring, put little effort into them, and trust to luck/statistics that a few will reach adulthood? Or do you have fewer offspring and put time and effort and resources into ensuring they reach adulthood? This is of course, a continuum rather than an either/or decision, and goes right the way from creatures that produce millions of eggs that are immediately released into the wild (many fish do this), to organisms that invest huge resources in nurturing a very few offspring all the way to the point where they're ready to breed themselves (the obvious example being, of course, Homo sapiens).

 

And, in fact, it's even more complex than that, since what you're really trying to ensure is the continuity of your genetic material. You don't have to have your own offspring to do this; your children contain half of your genes, but your siblings' children contain a quarter of your genes each (on average). And so you can also ensure the continuation of your genes by helping your siblings raise a larger family than they might otherwise manage. This happens in quite a few species, too.

 

I have nothing more to add to this well written post!

 

As a final note, I am not here to bash individuals who choose a polyamorous lifestyle but to present the other side. As it is quite clear, I am on the other side of the fence on this issue but I respect your choices on how you want to live your lives. I do not agree however, that monogamy is possessive. It is a choice between two people who decide to commit to each other and like a polyamorous relationship, it requires constant communication in order to succeed. I just can't discredit that it so happens to be evolutionarily successful thus far. We are all still around aren't we? ;)

[Guest ***t***iv***]

Mmmmmmm. Boobies.

 

The book I'm reading actually discussed the whole tradition of wife swapping and polyamorous groups. Apparently, it first became quite the fad during the second world war, as soldiers and their wives would engage in wife swapping on base. Once the war ended, this "fad" came back with the soldiers and was expanded somewhat as groups engaged in "key parties"; the husbands would all put their house/car keys In a pile, the women would randomly select a set of keys, and whomever they belonged to would be their partner for the evening. This was back around 1953, and was a very popular practice.

 

Sounds almost like something that could be interesting now, given the right group of ladies...

I've heard of this! ..sounds exciting...

[KaceyKatzegeist 152]

My roommate and I share an interesting situation like this. We're not technically dating, but we do live together, share a bedroom, whatnot and everyone will ask us about our boyfriend/girlfriend because of how close we are. We both have sex with other people and we each know about it and have met the other one's playmates (though that's not agreed upon, it's circumstance).

 

It can work, but you have to be extremely open. For example, he knows I don't like when he's gone for the night because I like to sleep with someone. We are extremely open with each other, to the point that neither of us has felt so much trust in someone else in quite awhile.

[Chanel Reign 28097]

Over the years I have had much experience with polyamoury. Both personal and with the people I surround myself with as friends.

 

I have seen people struggle with the "am I.....poly or mono". I truly believe that some people are hardwired to be one way or the other. I have watched relationships crumble because of indecision, and I have seen beautiful relationships grow and produce very happy and whole children.

 

I know a man that is so eager to be part of mainstream culture, that he falls in love, marries them; and then can't keep it in his pants. He has been doing this his whole life and I have had many discussions regarding his poly leanings. He knows people that lead this life in a positive way; but refuses to let go of the thought that love and sex go together, and yet leads a second life. He knows what he's doing, but wants to me mainstream so badly and yet fails constantly. He is never at peace with himself because of this imo.

 

The instinct of procreation for survival of species has evolved out of us by culture and time to become a choice. Being poly still bucks the mainstream culture, but is being more and more accepted; as the definition of "family" is also in transition.

 

I this evolution? Devolution? I think it's just that more and more people are attaching less importance to the sex/love thing because of the negative issues it "can" bring into a mono relationship. As I've always said, sex is an activity and love is an emotion and should never be exclusively inclusive.

 

We have set our culture up to frequently fail at monogamy with fallout touching everyone; but I have an anthropological feeling that as an evolving entity eventually it will work itself out.

 

Humans always do, one way or another.

[Guest C*****tte]

I would like to throw the book Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. & Cacilda Jethá, M.D. into the ring of further reading. It is the most in depth and thorough book on the subject I have read and I have read many books on the subject both academic and mainstream. For those of you interested in evolutionary models its a must read. Absolutely super fascinating. My friends and I have been passing the book along and I have already lost 2 copies.

[spud271 47779]

As someone who was in an open marriage, it can work. You just have to be careful that your partner does not get jealous. Though I thought my wife was ok with our arrangement, turned out she became quite jealous over time, and was a serious issue at the end. I don't think she was ever comfortable with the situation and I know many other couples who have run in to the same problems over time. Takes two very emotionally strong people to live in an open relationship.

[Chanel Reign 28097]

As someone who was in an open marriage, it can work. You just have to be careful that your partner does not get jealous. Though I thought my wife was ok with our arrangement, turned out she became quite jealous over time, and was a serious issue at the end. I don't think she was ever comfortable with the situation and I know many other couples who have run in to the same problems over time. Takes two very emotionally strong people to live in an open relationship.

 

Jealousy is one of the most important issues. It is up to each to make sure this doesnt happen by ensuring you have a loving relationship to begin with. I have seen too many marriages fail because this was their last ditch attempt to keep it together.

 

I have been with my partner for over 20 yrs, and when we were ready, it happened naturally.

[rightnow101 134]

To each his/her own. Life is too short to worry about things. One should just do what feels right, keeping in mind not hurting other person. Thats my philosophy at least