Why emphasise on monogamy?

[FatAndFaithless]

Dude. Love who you want, fuck who you want. As long as everyone's a consenting adult I don't care what goes on in your bedroom or how many people join you.

[Mystic]

If you commit yourself to 1 person for life, you should honor that commitment.

Maybe monogamy arose because we are social creatures, other social animals are monogamous.

+ Raising a human kid is a lot harder compared to other species kids, so it benefits if both partners commit to sticking together for the kid's sake

Well, yeah. I'm not sure why there's this conviction that we're all programmed to be polygamous or whatever.

I don't personally believe we are, but all the supposed "studies" are showing this, and then there is the "evolutionary" theory details.

I'm saying if all these studies are right.....what keeps us away from shifting our monogamy mindset?

Obviously before we didn't have these studies and they weren't a factor in cultural norms.

And still today, most people are not informed about them, and have the classical understanding of what the natural state of human being is that is contrary to what these studies suggest.

Note: when I question the studies, i'm not questioning the Data, but the interpretation of the data.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you might be reading something into a study that isn;t there, but until we can see which study you're referring too, how can we know?

If by programmed to promiscuity or polygamy you mean that I can't help but get a chubby when some sizzling latin piece bends over 6 inches in front of me, sure....but it's not enough to make me walk away from what I've got.

I don't always do what my dick tells me is a good idea (just most of the time).

[Homeless Nutter]

If we biologically were are programmed to want more partners, and even dissatisfied with one partner over time (biologically that is), why emphasise on monogamy?

Let me lay down the math for you. In modern societies the number of males and females, who reach adulthood is roughly the same - there are slightly more girls born (~2%), especially in families with large numbers of children, probably due to woman's uterus becoming more hostile to male fetuses after each son. Roughly 2% of each gender are gay or bisexual. That means that there is roughly 1 heterosexual man to 1,02 heterosexual women. If some greedy horny f*cker decided to have 4, 6, or 32 wives - that would mean a significant number of males in the community would have to be without a partner. 

Now, in primitive, sexist, warring societies - like most traditional islamic ones - there's a significant surplus of women, because men (usually from a fairly young age) are the only ones actively participating in wars, as well as the ones most endangered by poor working conditions, or traffic accidents - as women can't serve in the military, work, or drive. Because of that difference in numbers - it's more feasible for one dude to have a harem. Also - insufficient number of available sexual partners created by rich people marrying more than their fair share of women, is useful for creating sexually frustrated young men, which can be easily motivated to do all sorts of grizzly sh*t, for the promise of a p*ssy - even if it's in the afterlife...

[The Grand Nudger]

In fairness, the ladies do seem to love a uniform, no matter how bloody it is. 

[paulpablo]

If we biologically were are programmed to want more partners, and even dissatisfied with one partner over time (biologically that is), why emphasise on monogamy?

I think jealousy plays a big part.  

Everyone has sexual desires for other people while in a relationship but it's rare for people to want their partner to have sex with other people so they enter into an agreement to both limit their sexual experiences to just being with one another.

[CapnAwesome]

If we biologically were are programmed to want more partners, and even dissatisfied with one partner over time (biologically that is), why emphasise on monogamy?

Now I'm sure this is the intent for monogamy pronates but....monogamy undoubtedly has a stabilizing effect on society and monogamous (or rather serial monogamous) societies are always better for women's rights. You see that in the Muslim world and in the United States and in history. Also I believe polygamy destabizes society because what do you do with all the unmarried men? Esspecially if they are told they will go to hell or be cast out of the community if they have extra marital sex. You end up with an excess of angry horny young men, which is not a good thing for society.

[vorlon13]

I see (and I realize I'm in a very small minority here) the first amendment as prohibiting governmental recognition of divorce/remarriage of folks originally married in a religion that forbids remarriage/divorce.

Imagine the higgledy piggely and cattywumpus in the fundamentalist/evangelical world if the government took their religious views more seriously than they do.

It would be very entertaining.

[Cecelia]

I don't emphasize on monogamy. I don't think we're biologically programmed to want more than one partner. Monogamy imo is something for people to decide for themselves if they want it. A person can be worth monogamy, but I don't think it's necessary for a healthy relationship at all. On the contrary, I know a non-monogamous relationship can be healthy. What isn't healthy is secrets and lies. It's an emotional response for some people--seeking monogamy, I mean. Some people desire it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Other people don't desire it, and there's nothing wrong with that either. Each individual has their own emotional wants and needs, and they have to decide how best they can be met for themselves.

[vorlon13]

The Mormon take on it is bewilderingly confusing.

The Book of Mormon condemns the practice of having multiple wives. Then Joe Smith subsequently to writing the book of Mormon had the revelation from God allowing multiple wives and it was to to be specific to only taking Native American ones subsequent to the first one. (not that Joe apparently ever did, he had many wives, but none were Native American) This constraint was viewed as a non-starter by the other men in leadership positions (Brigham Young, for example, tried 2, but found them lacking and abandoned them in Council Bluffs Iowa prior to heading to Salt Lake).

Additionally. it was a matter of negotiation (not revelation) (GASP!!) how having extra wives was going to actually work out in the Mormon world. The starting position was going to be modeled strictly on the Old Testament teachings and restrictions, but immediately there was a problem as the OT forbids a husband marrying a mother AND her daughter and it turns out, this was already occurring. Additionally, the OT forbid the marrying of sisters, and as it turns out, this was also already occurring. I'm pretty sure, in fact, several of the Mormon poobahs were doing both. So the OT requirements had to be changed. There were also some complications regarding women who were already married to 'lower tier' Mormon males and their desirability to the higher status Mormon males becoming apparent, so their existing marriages needed to be dissolved as a given woman could not be married to 2 men at the same time.

And then in exchange for Utah statehood, the multiple wifey thing had to be done in secret while publicly maintaining it had been stopped. And then at some point the secret marriages had to be suspended too.

Anyhow, this is their evolution of defining 'marriage for time'. Celestial marriages are another thing entirely.


I hope you all find Mormon opposition to same sex marriage in light of their manifest clusterfuck trying to get marriage defined correctly just in their own church as funny as I do.
Except when I'm totally pissed off about it . . . .