4 ms·

> The idea that we have to choose one partner for life is so indoctrinated into the fabric of society. I used to think this and remember my friends and I start

by dahart 3y ago

> The idea that we have to choose one partner for life is so indoctrinated into the fabric of society. I used to think this and remember my friends and I starting to have this idea that marriage is a social construct in high school and college as we tried on our philosopher hats. A little later I read an interesting book called Sperm Wars [1] that largely tried to line up the results of scientific papers and behavioral surveys with attitudes and narratives about sex. They had what was a compelling argument for me that the cultural ideas behind monogamy are a social rationalization for what we’d be largely doing anyway. In other words, they argued that from as far as they could tell, we tend to have serially monogamous pairings, and the culture and religion views on marriage are just after-the-fact explanations for it, not the primary cause of it. There are, of course, lots of other species on our planet that also tend toward serial monogamy, and don’t have the same social constructs that humans do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars

kibwen 3y ago
Of course, worth mentioning that arguing in favor of de-stigmatizing polyamory does not imply stigmatizing monogamy. If people are naturally monogamous, and therefore produce social structures that reflect monogamy, then it means there should be no fear whatsoever in de-stigmatizing polyamory.
postmodest 3y ago
I feel like it's just much more likely that a love triangle will end up with unbalanced weights than a love pair. Kind of by definition. And in a world where the relationship is procreative, the multi-decade long shared task demands stability.
- whaleofatw2022 3y ago
  It -can- be unbalanced. I've seen women and men with a 'hierarchy' of partners, and they all know it (these were typically D/s relationships as well, so it was at least consentual [0]) I've also seen cases where people just like to have a routine to go through. My partner and I are no longer practicing poly, but even when it started they were, aside from special occasions, just a one night a week thing. It worked out well because it was a night I worked late, so we couldn't do anything anyway. But there were times it was a little unbalanced one way or another, really though as long as you can communicate, it can get worked out. As far as procreation/etc, Aside from Mormon and other polygamous cultures/religions, it doesn't NOT work out. Or, I've seen scenarios where a polyamorous relationship allowed couples to have children where they could not otherwise. I think harem builders create lots of animosity tho. [0] well, parts were. Others were abusive.
SergeAx 3y ago
Marriage is not a social construct, it is an economical and legal institution.
- dahart 3y ago
  Hehe aren’t laws and all ‘institutions’ social constructs, by definition? ;) If economic and legal institutions summarized marriage, then I’d lean toward it being a social construct. But what about religious marriages, marriages for love, secret marriages, pre-law marriages, marriage traditions in all countries globally, some of which don’t have marriage laws, pair-bonding and cohabitation without legal marriage, etc.? I guess I feel like people choose partners and intimacy, regardless of laws, and the book I read convinced me that humans gently tend toward having one partner at a time, but obviously not always, and obviously among a wide distribution of behaviors.

by dahart 3y ago

kibwen 3y ago

Of course, worth mentioning that arguing in favor of de-stigmatizing polyamory does not imply stigmatizing monogamy. If people are naturally monogamous, and therefore produce social structures that reflect monogamy, then it means there should be no fear whatsoever in de-stigmatizing polyamory.

postmodest 3y ago

I feel like it's just much more likely that a love triangle will end up with unbalanced weights than a love pair. Kind of by definition. And in a world where the relationship is procreative, the multi-decade long shared task demands stability.

whaleofatw2022 3y ago
It -can- be unbalanced. I've seen women and men with a 'hierarchy' of partners, and they all know it (these were typically D/s relationships as well, so it was at least consentual [0]) I've also seen cases where people just like to have a routine to go through. My partner and I are no longer practicing poly, but even when it started they were, aside from special occasions, just a one night a week thing. It worked out well because it was a night I worked late, so we couldn't do anything anyway. But there were times it was a little unbalanced one way or another, really though as long as you can communicate, it can get worked out. As far as procreation/etc, Aside from Mormon and other polygamous cultures/religions, it doesn't NOT work out. Or, I've seen scenarios where a polyamorous relationship allowed couples to have children where they could not otherwise. I think harem builders create lots of animosity tho. [0] well, parts were. Others were abusive.

SergeAx 3y ago

Marriage is not a social construct, it is an economical and legal institution.

dahart 3y ago
Hehe aren’t laws and all ‘institutions’ social constructs, by definition? ;) If economic and legal institutions summarized marriage, then I’d lean toward it being a social construct. But what about religious marriages, marriages for love, secret marriages, pre-law marriages, marriage traditions in all countries globally, some of which don’t have marriage laws, pair-bonding and cohabitation without legal marriage, etc.? I guess I feel like people choose partners and intimacy, regardless of laws, and the book I read convinced me that humans gently tend toward having one partner at a time, but obviously not always, and obviously among a wide distribution of behaviors.