8 ms·

I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' you

I wish social experimentation and progress happened at even 5% of the speed of technological progress.. why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? It seems arcane and based in insecurity. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? (Sorry for the overly controvesial wording if my post, I realize that filing more open relationships under 'social progress' is not obviously right, and would love to hear alternative perspectives, especially from people in stable happy long-term relationships)

aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's a personal thing. Some people don't like sharing one of the most intimate actions with their partner with other people. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? This is not helpful because some of the happiest relationships I know are very conservative (perhaps selfish in your view) relationships. Some people are monogamous, some aren't, no reason to judge either side.
- crsm345 9y ago
  It's certainly a personal decision, and I agree that there is no reason to make negative value judgments about two consenting adults deciding to uphold a (happy) monogamous remationship model. But the overwhelming dominance of this particular model is what seems suspect to me. Do all these people really prefer monogamy? Or rather, why do they? It seems very likely that it is due to societal pressure / 'conditioning' rather then 'authentic' personal preference. But this is of course nearly impossible to test. I do not think it's 'selfish' to follow a monogamous relationship style. To make a somewhat contentious analogy, I wouldn't condemn people for being gay either (or for being straight for that matter). However it seems important that these various types of relationships are genuinely possible without stigma etc. In the case of hetero/homo/... -sexuality it's obvious that there is a biological mechanism behind the dominance of heterosexuality. In the case of 'open' relationships (especially in the case of a 'monogamous love, polygamous sex' -type relationship this is a lot less clear. If it turns out that this is not simply due to 'practicality' (or innate biology) it seems overly restrictive as a social norm. One might even say 'opressive' (in the sense that Prohibition arguably was, not trying to equate this with racism/..)
jrcii 9y ago
Apparently morality is "arcane."
KGIII 9y ago
In most cases, it is a violation of trust. There's a difference between an open relationship and someone violating your trust. Monogamy isn't based on ownership, it's based on trust. Open relationships are fine, but you should have willing partners.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Aside from that, there are some very legitimate practical concerns with poly relationships. STDs, for example.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    That's easily solved with a blood test before you engage in a sexual relationship with additional partners.
    - hndamien 9y ago
      That is solved, but not so easily, with a blood test.
    - Insanity 9y ago
      Small bugfix: Regular blood tests* As any of your partners could be adding additional partners, and probably so could theirs. And if they're very open - they might casually have sex with someone else every weekend. Maintenance nightmare if you ask me. :P
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        The foundation of all relationships is trust. You can't hack around dishonesty. Don't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust if your health depends on it.
        Insanity 9y ago
        But, it's not dishonest in that case. If people are free to add partners as they like - then you can not _ensure_ that one of their partners (or their partner's partners, or partner's partner's partners, you get the point) respects that. It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)
simonsarris 9y ago
When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress." In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market' http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali... Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other. Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.
- colanderman 9y ago
  > it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry? EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
jrs95 9y ago
Traditionally the primary function of relationships is raising children, and monogamy is good at that. I don't see how shifting the focus from what is basically the foundation of our society towards doing what is fun and rewarding in the short term is a sign of social progress.
Nursie 9y ago
>> why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together. It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone for whom it was. If something else works for you, great, but please don't frame it as progress or freedom from ownership. Progress is allowing everyone to choose the sorts of relationships they find fulfilling, with no persecution or shaming. Not calling what works for others insecure or arcane.
- crsm345 9y ago
  Fair points. Perhaps my phrasing was needlessly agressive. I didn't mean to label individual personal choices as 'arcane'. Rather, it's the social/cultural norm that I find suboptimal. (Also, the economic connotations involved are perhaps in bad taste) I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak. It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating. Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense. Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner. Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit. In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization. It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.
LordKano 9y ago
>>why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? For the most part, people don't believe that they do. People think that they're owed honesty. There's an enormous difference. I'm in a committed, long term relationship. If she decided that she didn't want to be with me anymore, I would be hurt but the honesty would prevent the hurt from being the anger that comes from betrayal.
crpatino 9y ago
I know you are talking of "evolution of sexual mores" when you say the phrase "experimentation and progress"... but let's entertain the notion that you got your wish granted by an evil genie. If that was the case, at age 16 your older (18) sibling's behavior would be as outdated that she might as well be 80. Your parent's behaviour would be so alien and bizarra that they might as well be 16th century artisans; your grandparents would be somewhere between Ancient Egypt priests and Cro-Magnoon shamans. Earlier ancestors would be so far away that they would have to be modelled as non human inteligences. What kind of society would you expect to develop around a bunch of people that cannot understand the motivations of even their closest kindred?

aaron-lebo 9y ago

It's a personal thing. Some people don't like sharing one of the most intimate actions with their partner with other people. If you can't handle even the slightest of erotic competition, how solid can the basis of your relationship be? This is not helpful because some of the happiest relationships I know are very conservative (perhaps selfish in your view) relationships. Some people are monogamous, some aren't, no reason to judge either side.

crsm345 9y ago
It's certainly a personal decision, and I agree that there is no reason to make negative value judgments about two consenting adults deciding to uphold a (happy) monogamous remationship model. But the overwhelming dominance of this particular model is what seems suspect to me. Do all these people really prefer monogamy? Or rather, why do they? It seems very likely that it is due to societal pressure / 'conditioning' rather then 'authentic' personal preference. But this is of course nearly impossible to test. I do not think it's 'selfish' to follow a monogamous relationship style. To make a somewhat contentious analogy, I wouldn't condemn people for being gay either (or for being straight for that matter). However it seems important that these various types of relationships are genuinely possible without stigma etc. In the case of hetero/homo/... -sexuality it's obvious that there is a biological mechanism behind the dominance of heterosexuality. In the case of 'open' relationships (especially in the case of a 'monogamous love, polygamous sex' -type relationship this is a lot less clear. If it turns out that this is not simply due to 'practicality' (or innate biology) it seems overly restrictive as a social norm. One might even say 'opressive' (in the sense that Prohibition arguably was, not trying to equate this with racism/..)

jrcii 9y ago

Apparently morality is "arcane."

KGIII 9y ago

In most cases, it is a violation of trust. There's a difference between an open relationship and someone violating your trust. Monogamy isn't based on ownership, it's based on trust. Open relationships are fine, but you should have willing partners.

enraged_camel 9y ago
Aside from that, there are some very legitimate practical concerns with poly relationships. STDs, for example.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  That's easily solved with a blood test before you engage in a sexual relationship with additional partners.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    That is solved, but not so easily, with a blood test.
  - Insanity 9y ago
    Small bugfix: Regular blood tests* As any of your partners could be adding additional partners, and probably so could theirs. And if they're very open - they might casually have sex with someone else every weekend. Maintenance nightmare if you ask me. :P
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      The foundation of all relationships is trust. You can't hack around dishonesty. Don't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust if your health depends on it.
      - Insanity 9y ago
        But, it's not dishonest in that case. If people are free to add partners as they like - then you can not _ensure_ that one of their partners (or their partner's partners, or partner's partner's partners, you get the point) respects that. It increases the odds of getting an STD I believe. But I don't have numbers to back that up nor do I feel like looking for them now (sorry)

simonsarris 9y ago

When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress." In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market' http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali... Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other. Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.

colanderman 9y ago
> it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry? EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.

jrs95 9y ago

Traditionally the primary function of relationships is raising children, and monogamy is good at that. I don't see how shifting the focus from what is basically the foundation of our society towards doing what is fun and rewarding in the short term is a sign of social progress.

Nursie 9y ago

>> why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? I don't own my partner's body, however I expect emotional exclusivity, and that's also what I want to give. Sex, closeness, trust and emotional bonds are all tied up together. It's not "erotic competition" and to me the use of that phrase just belies a lack of maturity - it's never "just sex" for me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone for whom it was. If something else works for you, great, but please don't frame it as progress or freedom from ownership. Progress is allowing everyone to choose the sorts of relationships they find fulfilling, with no persecution or shaming. Not calling what works for others insecure or arcane.

crsm345 9y ago
Fair points. Perhaps my phrasing was needlessly agressive. I didn't mean to label individual personal choices as 'arcane'. Rather, it's the social/cultural norm that I find suboptimal. (Also, the economic connotations involved are perhaps in bad taste) I'm not sure whether this is correct in English (not my first language) but 'erotic' was meant to include not just sex but other forms of closeness as well. What I don't understand is why the bond of trust, emotional closeness, and so forth necessarily needs to have exclusivity built-in, so to speak. It's also not like other (non-sexual) forms of closeness are considered cheating. If I am in a monogamous relationship and develop a non-sexual, strong emotional bond with someone else I've only made a new friend, not cheated. However if I have 'just' sex (with little emotional involvement) it is considered cheating. Now if it were commonly accepted that it is only 'cheating' if you have some strong emotional bond in addition to sexual relations, it would make more sense. Even then, however, it seems unclear why the fact thaat you also have a strong bond with somebody else somehow invalidates the bond you have with your partner. Obviously, for 'practical' reasons the number of deep relationships one can have is limited. But 1 seems like an artificially low limit. In regards to what we could consider progress: I completely agree with what you wrote. However, what is considered a 'normal' relationship, what is ezpected if no further discussion or arrangements are made, what most everyone defaults to, is a partly social norm with important consequences, and one which should be subject to criticism and optimization. It seems unlikely to me that nearly everyone prefers exclusive monogamy vs a more relaxed relationship model. It seems more likely that the dominance of that particular arrangement is due to societal pressure. Of course maybe it seems that way because I am somehow emotionally immature. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to design rigorous studies to research this question.

LordKano 9y ago

>>why don't we just get rid of the idea that you 'own' your partner's body? For the most part, people don't believe that they do. People think that they're owed honesty. There's an enormous difference. I'm in a committed, long term relationship. If she decided that she didn't want to be with me anymore, I would be hurt but the honesty would prevent the hurt from being the anger that comes from betrayal.

crpatino 9y ago

I know you are talking of "evolution of sexual mores" when you say the phrase "experimentation and progress"... but let's entertain the notion that you got your wish granted by an evil genie. If that was the case, at age 16 your older (18) sibling's behavior would be as outdated that she might as well be 80. Your parent's behaviour would be so alien and bizarra that they might as well be 16th century artisans; your grandparents would be somewhere between Ancient Egypt priests and Cro-Magnoon shamans. Earlier ancestors would be so far away that they would have to be modelled as non human inteligences. What kind of society would you expect to develop around a bunch of people that cannot understand the motivations of even their closest kindred?