Monogamy, Polyamory and the like

[LittleFireCat]

Well, speaking from a natural world, evolution stand point, the biggest relationship taboo seems to be monogamy. Very few animals engage in it, which makes sense in a reproduction stand point. Spreading and mixing your genes as much as possible is the best way to insure your genetic survival.

Personal genetic survival, maybe. It backfires when the population is small: monogamy is the best way to prevent incest. Which, moral arguments aside, is biologically inadvisable. Causes all kinds of nasty recessive traits and mutations to show up.

Actually, a great many avian species are monogamous. To be fair, a lot of them are serially monogamous, especially if they're migratory: they have one mate for one breeding season, then a different mate for the next breeding season. In tropical areas, where fewer species migrate, birds can't afford to be polygamous--because females become fertile through short periods spaced throughout the year (as opposed to migratory songbirds, who all become fertile at the same time), the only way a male can be sure of siring chicks is to remain with his mate.

Also, a fair number of mammals practice either monoamory or polygamy (polyandry is rarer, but not unheard of)--that is, harem-style sexual behavior. Far fewer species are truly polyamorous, where both males and females have multiple mates, not necessarily the same ones. In polyandrous or -gamous settings, the dominant female or male will usually prevent her or his subordinates from mating, to the point of forcefully rejecting rivals from a social group (herd, pack, what-have-you).

While over 90% of bird species appear to be monogamous, genetic studies show that in most populations at least a few offspring in each generation result from matings with partners other than a pair member. In some species extrapair copulations produce over half of the offspring.

link

Monogamy is so rare in the animal world that only 3-5 % of the mammals are known to form lifelong pair bonds, like beavers, otters, jackals, foxes, some bats and a few dwarf deer and antelopes.

link
Polygamy does not equal monogamy, it is polygamy. I'm not sure why you brought it up in an argument over how monogamous or not animals are.

[wolfeyedangel]

AmethystFairy: Your phrasing on your original post was very sloppy. You skirted very close to direct and blatant insult. Tossing in phrases such as "I think" or "It's my opinion" do not remove the insult. You need to think very carefully about how you phrase things and keep it as polite and diplomatic as humanly possible. They are expected to do the same.

Since there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to how to present a radically opposed view including extreme discomfort, I will provide a brief example. I will use AmethystFairy's rough standpoint for this example since it is what is most fresh in our minds. I have made the example 'experiences' up out of whole cloth.

Example:
On a personal, I would find accepting more than one partner into an intimate relationship disturbing. It is not a viewpoint I readily understand on a personal or emotional level. I find a heterosexual monogamous relationship the most comfortable fit for me. Part of this may be my raising. I was raised relatively conservatively, and my parents and majority of my extended family have long term very successful heterosexual monogamous relationships. Incidence of divorce and moderate to severe relationship issues in our family is very low. The main example of a polygamous arrangement I was familiar with was the Dehrlandian (Mod comment: Yes, I made the country up) family in our neighborhood. In their country they have more women than men, and their religion allows man is allowed up to three wives. One of their children went to school with me, and she was always talking about how her fathers wives argued about about who took precedence and who was 'favorite'. Which ever wife seemed to be 'in favor' seemed to affect the children as well, over all it seemed a very discordant set of relationships, and they seemed to think nothing at all about the arguing and power plays, and their daughter told me that all her relatives had the same kinds of debates and power plays. It wasn't something I really ever wanted to deal with.

End Example.

Links can be added to make particular points (like say a link to a Dehrlandian cultural article describing their family structure.) but should not be the entirety of a post with a very few exceptions (along the lines of "I found a link to that article I mentioned X post of mine. Here it is.")

~Wolfeyedangel

[LunatheDragoness]

I think having anyone else in a relationship is disgusting and wrong. Im sorry but that is my opinion. Having more than one mate to me is cheating. A person should be with only one person at a time. Dont like the current one your with? Go find someone else. Its just gross to me.

I would caution that you're skirting close to insulting others with your statements. You may wish to be more concise and focus on how you personally feel about your relationships rather than passing judgment on others.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...but I would like to know how it's cheating when all of the persons in the relationship are consenting adults, know about the others involved, and have approved their inclusion in the relationship.

By definition, cheating involves defrauding or swindling someone out of something. That implies duplicity or lying. With polyamory, there should be no lying. We are ALL aware of each other and our relationships with one another. We function as a family. Dee's son isn't mine, but I'm his godmother. Ygraine is one of my closest friends and I'd no more begrudge her relationship with him than I would my husband's with his sister, Dorie.

We all benefit emotionally, physically, and psychologically from the closeness, the clean communication, and the loving and trusting atmosphere we've built with the guidelines I mentioned. Many monogamous couples never have that. If it works, I see no reason NOT to love more than one person.

The point is, it's kind of hard to be sexually unfaithful when sexual agreement between partners include other partners and you know who those partners are.

Polyamory isn't about sex (that's swinging, the exchange of partners, usually among heterosexual couples, for the sake of fulfilling a sexual fantasy). If they're all consenting adults and all capable of loving more than one person, why not do so? I just don't view love as a finite thing, confined to only one person, and neither does any of our large extended family.

Being involved with more than one partner means always having someone to take care of you or your pets or your children in an emergency. It means you never going without because if one of you suffers a job loss or a reduction in pay or develops a chronic condition, the others will help out. Some of those I consider part of my polyamorous family, such as Pasha (whom I mentioned before) and Heather (whom I did not) are not sexual partners and never will be. I'm not interested in Pasha and Heather and I long ago agreed that we'd only mess up our special friendship if we got further involved.

I still love them, and it's a love which goes far beyond the general concept of friendship or best friends. They are family. I would not, for instance, give my best friend my medical power of attorney but each of my beloveds has that legal right, properly witnessed by a notary public and filed with my living will.

We're not hurting anyone. None of us is Christian either so the concept of a monogamous marriage isn't a consideration in the first place (aside from the fact that even in the Bible there's mention of God's people having more than one wife, but that's another thread). It's not as though you can spot us in public and say "Ah-ha! There goes a bunch of deviant polyamorous folk!" In truth, we're more likely to resemble a sci-fi club on an outing or a bunch of geeks, nerds, and bibliophiles on a shopping trip than anything else. You certainly won't see us making some of the gratuitous and unnecessary public displays of affection that you see with traditional couples in public.

Who's disgusting now: a group of laughing happy adults on an outing or that monogamous couple with each other's hands in their pants and down their shirts in a very public restaurant?

Perhaps because we're aware that our lifestyle and choices are less acceptable to most people, we're cautious and courteous about such things. You'll see the boys pulling out chairs for the women and any one of them pushing my wheelchair. You might see a clap on the back, a caress through the hair, a loving look. That's about it. Nothing to separate us from the rest of humanity.

We're not monsters, we just have conquered the jealousy monster and know how to love freely and love more than one person.

I dont see how I offended any one by saying that. I do not like that idea of it. I never said anything about the person. I dont care what they choice. Its what they want and if they are happy with it then ok good your happy. I never said anything about sexual things as well. Bg/Gf couples are too capable of the same things as you stated about polyamory. Me and my boyfriend are not sexual. We are waiting till marriage to engage in sexual content . We do not do sexual things in public ect. Those are things that should be behind doors not in public for others to see. Ive never said anything about being a "monster". I accept that others dont want just one person by whatever their reasons are. I can not judge them. If it makes them happy and it makes life happy for them then so be it. I just in my opinion do not like that idea. Im not Christian either. I beleive in God but I do not beleive really in religion..hard to explain but I just dont..I think you just took what I said wrongly.
In bold::I find that kinda as taunting as you shoving that in my face..

[GamingGal]

I've been raised by being taught that a monogamous relationship is what's right, and therefore that's what I expect when I go looking for a relationship.

You see, I have problems trusting people. Or, I get very jealous. And I have a guilty conscious beyond belief. If I was in a relationship with more than one person, I'd feel as if I wasn't treating them fairly. I'm the type of person that wants you all to themselves, and I would assume my partner would want the same. Therefore, having more than one partner, I'd feel they wouldn't like sharing. If that makes sense (I'm tired, mind you). And I could NOT be in a relationship with someone where they had other people as well for many reasons. My trust issues would not allow it at all. I'd get jealous of the other people, which result in me being clingy and needy. This jealousy would breed hatred after some time. And then, I'd worry they spent more time with the other people than me. I'd worry I wasn't good enough, which is why they need others besides me.

Although, that's not to say that people that can have more than one partner don't interest me. I try my hardest to understand the level of trust and whatnot behind it, but I can't. It's a foreign idea which I can't grasp.

And I'm sure the fact that I was raised Southern Baptist has something to do with it. We believe in monogamous relationships, of course.

Also, just couldn't let this one slide. Monogamous couples do have a tendency to be all over each other in public. But don't forget those of us that have courtesy! When me and my girlfriend would be at school or at a soccer game, we would be discreet with out actions. Partly because I'd be murdered if my family found out I'm bi, and partly because I just don't like being open with such actions.

[HobbitFeet]

I'm more geared towards monogamy because, well, I don't don't feel like having a relationship that consists of three or more people. I have my romantic partner, to whom I'm very close, and a best friend, who I am also close to. But we never mix. If the boyfriend asked to "borrow" her, I wouldn't be comfortable with that, and I know she wouldn't either.

And what I mean by "feel like" is a little hard to explain. I am a creature of jealousy, but that's not really it. It's like... when I'm in an exclusive relationship with a person, I'm solely attracted to that person. It doesn't mean I can't appreciate another person's beauty, but I'm not really looking to do so. I lose interest in it. When I'm single, that's completely different, but when I'm very emotionally involved and invested in a person I just don't feel the urge to branch out. If I found myself missing something, like... say he wasn't meeting my emotional needs, I'd probably feel a small urge to have someone else satisfy it, but guilt would keep me from doing so. I'd make an effort to talk to him about that, to see if he would be interested in trying, or to see if there was something wrong that prevented him from doing so. If it ended up that he couldn't, then I'd end that relationship and pursue another elsewhere. I would be unhappy if the boyfriend requested to have another person join the relationship, as I would have to wonder why he feels the need to share his romantic and possibly sexual affections with another. And I'd end up worrying whether or not he cares for the other person more or less than myself. It'd just be a mess.

I think some people still misunderstand that having multiple partners is not considered cheating if all people involved are consenting adults, and so long as they all know what's what. That doesn't mean that cheating couldn't happen, it's just that the act of having a polygamous relationship is not an act of cheating. Disclosure and consent is what separates polygamy from cheating. I myself may not understand the drive to be in that sort of relationship, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong in any way.

[wolfeyedangel]

@AmethystFairy: TxCat was far more courteous in her reply than you were in your initial statement. You apparently have not read my own post addressing you, please go back and re-read it. It is not taunting you for her to explain her position. She didn't say you were stupid. She didn't say your actions were reprehensible or disgusting. She stated her position calmly and rationally. If I stop her from stating her position the way she did, both of your posts would have to be deleted since, in essence you are doing the exact same thing to her. This is a serious discussion forum. If you cannot hold a reasonable conversation with someone who has an opposing view point you might wish to reconsider your involvement in this particular conversation or at the very least this particular thread.

~Wolfeyedangel

[Corvidae]

Polygamy does not equal monogamy, it is polygamy.

But it also does not equal polyamory. I define polyamory as both females and males having

...genetic studies show that in most populations at least a few offspring in each generation result from matings with partners other than a pair member.

Isn't that true of humans, also? Such extra-pair copulations are not socially accepted (although they may be accepted as a fact). That's not polyamory, that's cheating.

Species with higher levels of polygamy are migratory songbirds. All females of a given species of migratory songbird become fertile at the same time; there's ample opportunity for cheating, and more pressure to spread one's seed (or eggs: in some species, most cheating is initiated by females) as far as possible in the very short breeding window which will not occur until next year. Given that most migratory songbirds have a high rate of population turnover (although I can't find an actual statistic), chances are that an adult bird will have very few chances to reproduce.

In humans, such is not the case. Human females become fertile frequently and for longer periods, and we live in tightly-knit social groups as opposed to loose familial groups which dissipate every year with migration. We also have a relatively slow population turnover. An adult human will have many chances to procreate, so there is no evolutionary pressure to find as many mates as possible.

[LittleFireCat]

Polygamy does not equal monogamy, it is polygamy.

But it also does not equal polyamory. I define polyamory as both females and males having

...genetic studies show that in most populations at least a few offspring in each generation result from matings with partners other than a pair member.

Isn't that true of humans, also? Such extra-pair copulations are not socially accepted (although they may be accepted as a fact). That's not polyamory, that's cheating.

Species with higher levels of polygamy are migratory songbirds. All females of a given species of migratory songbird become fertile at the same time; there's ample opportunity for cheating, and more pressure to spread one's seed (or eggs: in some species, most cheating is initiated by females) as far as possible in the very short breeding window which will not occur until next year. Given that most migratory songbirds have a high rate of population turnover (although I can't find an actual statistic), chances are that an adult bird will have very few chances to reproduce.

In humans, such is not the case. Human females become fertile frequently and for longer periods, and we live in tightly-knit social groups as opposed to loose familial groups which dissipate every year with migration. We also have a relatively slow population turnover. An adult human will have many chances to procreate, so there is no evolutionary pressure to find as many mates as possible.

I was using the definition of monogamy on animals that we use on humans, life long (or at least long term as in more than one 'mating season') sexually exclusive male/female pair bonds. The majority of birds do not do that, as said, they cheat, genetics prove that. In fact, the one species of bird that seems most committed to monogamy is the black vulture (this does not mean that all other species are non-monogamous, but they are not committed to the same level) . Polygamy does not fit this modal either, that is not a pair bond because pair means two.

Your arguments for why monogamy fits for adult humans also apply to other large primates, including our closest genetic relatives, the bonobo chimpanzee. And yet, bonobos are decidedly polyamorous, with very few sexually taboo pairings. For them, sexual activity serves as the glue that holds the group together. This is likely due to the hormone Oxytocin, which is known to be released shortly after orgasm in both men and women. Oxytocin is known to effect the brain by reducing anxiety, and increasing feelings of trust and desire to be together. Oxytocin is found in all mammals, and similar hormones are found in virtually all other vertebrates.

[Corvidae]

I was using the definition of monogamy on animals that we use on humans, life long (or at least long term as in more than one 'mating season') sexually exclusive male/female pair bonds. The majority of birds do not do that, as said, they cheat, genetics prove that. In fact, the one species of bird that seems most committed to monogamy is the black vulture (this does not mean that all other species are non-monogamous, but they are not committed to the same level). Polygamy does not fit this model either, that is not a pair bond because pair means two.

I think we're arguing two different points. You seem convinced that my argument hinges on how many species are exclusively monogamous, which in your definition means complete and total fidelity in every individual. I sincerely doubt that any species is so exclusively faithful; defending such a point would be impossible. I am arguing how many species are not polyamorous.

If we define humans as a monogamous species, which I think we can--a generalization, a statement of majority, not a statement applicable to every human individual--then we accept that most if not all monogamous societies will have some degree of cheating. That's simply how it is. Cheating does not equate to polyamory; haven't we gone over this already?

By your definition, humans are not a monogamous species, so why are we having this discussion?

Yes, I know that 'pair' means 'two'. I am not a three-year-old; please refrain from treating me as such.

Your arguments for why monogamy fits for adult humans also apply to other large primates, including our closest genetic relatives, the bonobo chimpanzee. And yet, bonobos are decidedly polyamorous, with very few sexually taboo pairings. For them, sexual activity serves as the glue that holds the group together. This is likely due to the hormone Oxytocin, which is known to be released shortly after orgasm in both men and women. Oxytocin is known to effect the brain by reducing anxiety, and increasing feelings of trust and desire to be together. Oxytocin is found in all mammals, and similar hormones are found in virtually all other vertebrates.

Yes, yes, basic chemical biology and primate behaviorism.

Honestly, my 'arguments' were less that and more theory, hypothetical explanations. I can't presume to know what evolutionary and/or social pressures combined to make modern humans a primarily-monogamous species. Religion undoubtedly played a part in it; population, emotional responses. At any rate, the 'arguments' I provided were not, as you seem to believe, evidence for why humans are primarily monogamous; they were an explanation as to why avian species with extremely high rates of extra-pair copulation should not be compared to humans.

[TxCat]

I found the term used for animals (and I include humans in that classification) who take a single mate at one time, but who may have several long term mates or relationships in their lifetimes. It's called serial monogamy. Also, please remember that polyamory, polyandry, and polygamy are not the same nor are they interchangeable.

Polyandry is the practice of having more than one husband.

Polygamy is the practice of having more than one wife.

Polyamory simply means 'many loves' and can define multiple relationships of differing degrees between consenting adults which can have physical, emotional, or psychological aspects or any combination thereof. Within polyamory, there are terms for the different types of relationship groupings. As soon as I can find my reference book, I'll post more about that.