Is there a right way to romantically connect with others?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I began pondering this question during and after I watched Her (2013).  An interesting theme was that of polygamous and monogamous relationships.  Specifically, are they both equally valid and equally ethical venues of pursuing romantic connection? Is the path we take toward seeking romantic connection the result of social conditioning, biological hard-wiring, a combination of the two, or do you have another explanation? Do you have any further insights? Thanks.

P.S.  I'm looking forward to reading everyone's insights and wisdom.

[Excited Penguin]

Her is a great movie. Just this week I watched it for the second time.

I don't know if there's a right or wrong way, but I'm certainly very, very bad at it. I have romantic feelings for someone right now and I'm screwing it up somehow, over and over again.

I struggle with that question myself. I don't know what to say, frankly. The more in love you are with someone, the harder it is to share them with anyone else. You could, if you trusted the person and you knew that they loved you back, maybe.

[Arkilogue]

Certainly there is massive cultural (commercial) drive to find (by stuff for) that special "one and only". Selling the dream, setting up the failure of expectations....rinse, repeat and rake in the cash.

But the family is also the basic unit of civilization and children (especially boys) that have no guidance make for civilization destroyers.
This is also part of the social isolation of people in the modern world. Indigenous villages don't have the same problem. The tribe is basically extended family and everyone helps everyone from birth to death. That is true social security.

The Hawaiian's had an interesting way...http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/marriage-in-ancient-hawaii.html

Before talking about marriage in ancient Hawaii, it is important to understand that Ancient Hawaiian society had a very strict adherence to the ancient religion - the Kapu (taboo) system - that dictated their actions and behavior in every single aspect of their lives. While Judeo-Christian-based Western societies have generally placed the most importance on religious tenets applied to sex and sexuality - and more specifically on the female gender, the Hawaiians had a much looser conception of regulating sexual behavior and it was far more rigid and repressive when it came to food and eating.

For instance, homosexuality was completely acceptable, but in practice, most were bi-sexual. It was also common for both commoners and royalty to wife swap and play sexual games similar to spin the bottle, except random pairings resulted in far more activity than just kissing. They also had a religious ceremony called hi'uwai that was essentially an orgy at night time in the ocean during a certain time of year to maintain a form of anonymous discretion between participants. Children conceived from this ceremony were considered especially blessed. As you can see, Hawaiian society was quite libertine...which is why when haole (white folk) sailors first came here, it quickly became a favorite port of call. The first sailors got laid like tile by the native women.

Marriage was basically broken down into two categories: lifelong monogamy for everyone except Royalty. Royalty had two-way polygamy - Men could have multiple wives, women could have multiple husbands. While this was the concept, it was not really the common practice for women to have multiple husbands at the same time, though they technically could. We would recognize the female polygamy as more similar to rotating polyandry today. If a Chiefess were unhappy with her husband, she would leave and take up with another Chief elsewhere. Sometimes she'd return to her former husband, sometimes not. Generally speaking though (there are historical exceptions of rival chiefs kidnapping women from each other), marriage and sexual relations were entirely at her discretion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think they're both equally valid in terms of ethics so long as any and all partners involved are in agreement regarding the relationship's rules.

I'm not into polyamory myself, but I don't think that says anything about my morality or lack thereof.

[Foxaèr]

Primates are not meant to be monogamous.

[Edwardo Piet]

The 'right' way is naturally and spontaneously. Don't force anything. That's my view for what it's worth.

If love happens it happens if it doesn't it doesn't.

[Arkilogue]

Primates are not meant to be monogamous.

But they do get upset when you take away something they think belongs to them.

And I see human jealousy stemming from a similar sense of possession only its the possession of another human. The first marriages where a property exchange, one man's property (daughter) is given into the possession of another man.

[Excited Penguin]

Primates are not meant to be monogamous.

But they do get upset when you take away something they think belongs to them.

And I see human jealousy stemming from a similar sense of possession only its the possession of another human.  The first marriages where a property exchange, one man's property (daughter) is given into the possession of another man.

It's stupid. In my mind, any person is and should be free to do what they want in this regrd, no matter the kind of relationship they are in. If they don't want anyone else at some particular moment in their life, but the one person they love, then that's up to them. If they want to cheat on them and the other person minds, that's up to them too, they'll just have to face the consequences. If they want to talk it through and reach an understanding with their partner, again, that's their choice. But no one else should tell anyone what they should do romantically or sexually. No one should own anyone else.

[Arkilogue]

But they do get upset when you take away something they think belongs to them.

And I see human jealousy stemming from a similar sense of possession only its the possession of another human.  The first marriages where a property exchange, one man's property (daughter) is given into the possession of another man.

It's stupid. In my mind, any person is and should be free to do what they want in this regrd, no matter the kind of relationship they are in. If they don't want anyone else at some particular moment in their life, but the one person they love, then that's up to them. If they want to cheat on them and the other person minds, that's up to them too, they'll just have to face the consequences. If they want to talk it through and reach an understanding with their partner, again, that's their choice. But no one else should tell anyone what they should do romantically or sexually. No one should own anyone else.

Agreed but the assumption is institutionalized and commercialized, what chances do kids have? Throw entitlement culture on top of that and no wonder we have men going their own way.

Have you seen the commercials lately? The husband is a dumb slave to be mocked and emasculated.

[Excited Penguin]

It's stupid. In my mind, any person is and should be free to do what they want in this regrd, no matter the kind of relationship they are in. If they don't want anyone else at some particular moment in their life, but the one person they love, then that's up to them. If they want to cheat on them and the other person minds, that's up to them too, they'll just have to face the consequences. If they want to talk it through and reach an understanding with their partner, again, that's their choice. But no one else should tell anyone what they should do romantically or sexually. No one should own anyone else.

Agreed but the assumption is institutionalized and commercialized, what chances do kids have?  Throw entitlement culture on top of that and no wonder we have men going their own way.

Have you seen the commercials lately?  The husband is a dumb slave to be mocked and emasculated.

I don't mind being mocked and emasculated by women under certain conditions and in certain situations. In fact I might even like it sometimes.

But certainly this can go too far, I agree with that.