moll(other female){owned slav}
|
2 years ago •
Jul 27, 2022
Atila wrote: moll wrote: Atila wrote: moll wrote: Atila wrote: Wait, people that said that monogamy was imposed by religion... Culture is part of human's evolution. And it can affect our biology, including our preference. Studies show that species that tend tip to monogamy have less dimorphism between them, body size. If you compare human dimorphism today to how our ancestors were, it has decreased. By quite a lot. If I remember correctly, it used to be like 50% and it has decreased to 30 to 20 %. At the end, the argument of it being natural or not can be fought, but then we'll have to get into the argument of how natural it is to eat with cutlery. Monogamy per definition is quite clear, we should really just look inside ourselves and see what we want. At the end, that's what is important. Once you do, you can look for it.
Monogamy was imposed by Judeo/Christian leaders. For centuries the Catholic Church ruled over most European countries. Kings and Queens didn't make a move without the Pope's blessing. Monogamy has a new definition...as stated by the OP: it used to be one person for life to one person at a time. It was taken to other parts of the world as part of religion, but it didn't start there at all. That wasn't how monogamy was born. And the social construct has had biological consequences. Culture is as much part of human evolution as sexual pleasure. It's not a construct you have to live by, and it doesn't even have to be religious. Even before, when polygamy was the norm, it's been learn that it's not true everyone lived like that, most lived in monogamy. And that was before religion. Of course society has an influence over biology.....ie...spread of disease/infection. That became more than apparent during the 80s when HIV/AIDS was making having multiple partners an issue until it was realized that using a condom prevents the spread. Prior to the influence of Judeo/Christian societies monogamy did exist, I never stated it didn't, but it was not the norm. Even men that didn't have multiple wives, had courtesans/hand maidens/mistresses/etc. Again, not the majority and they did if they were well off. Polygamy has always been more often seen in men that had power and money. The rest of the humans had to make do... like always hahaha I like how you are now adding the "power and money" aspect. Yes, if a person had wealth they could afford to take care of multiple wives. I did touch on that in a previous post. |
|
|
Online now
Knightsundere(sub male)
|
2 years ago •
Jul 27, 2022
moll wrote: You are stating that western cultures, where monogamy is more acceptable, has a larger population than cultures where polygamy is more accepted. I'm stating the reason for the disproportion in population size. Since the 1960s, the migration from the East to the West has been unprecedented. In other words, more and more people are leaving societies where polygamy is more accept to a society where it isn't. ... no, I said that societies that favor monogamy have a larger population than those that favor polygamy. China, India, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Brazil, and maaany other non-Western civilizations are currently overwhelmingly monogamous. Read the link I sent, it's fair information and you can double-check it if you want, I'm not terribly attached to this opinion. Western society only accounts for 2 billion-ish people out of the 7 billion on the planet. |
|
|
|
moll(other female){owned slav}
|
2 years ago •
Jul 27, 2022
Knightsundere wrote: moll wrote: You are stating that western cultures, where monogamy is more acceptable, has a larger population than cultures where polygamy is more accepted. I'm stating the reason for the disproportion in population size. Since the 1960s, the migration from the East to the West has been unprecedented. In other words, more and more people are leaving societies where polygamy is more accept to a society where it isn't. ... no, I said that societies that favor monogamy have a larger population than those that favor polygamy. China, India, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Brazil, and maaany other non-Western civilizations are currently overwhelmingly monogamous. Read the link I sent, it's fair information and you can double-check it if you want, I'm not terribly attached to this opinion. Western society only accounts for 2 billion-ish people out of the 7 billion on the planet. So Egypt. Iran, and Jordan that had to literally has a law to limit multiple wives to only 4 and they have to get a license to do so? In India, polygamy was outlawed when the English ruled over the country and that was because they pushed Christian doctrine onto the country. Turkey only made it illegal in the 1920s, but it doesn't stop men from having mistresses (2nd wife). Just because it's illegal to have multiple wives in some of the countries you mentioned, doesn't mean that people (men especially) don't have multiple partners. |
|
|
|
Knightsundere(sub male)
|
2 years ago •
Jul 27, 2022
moll wrote: So Egypt. Iran, and Jordan that had to literally has a law to limit multiple wives to only 4 and they have to get a license to do so? In India, polygamy was outlawed when the English ruled over the country and that was because they pushed Christian doctrine onto the country. Turkey only made it illegal in the 1920s, but it doesn't stop men from having mistresses (2nd wife). Just because it's illegal to have multiple wives in some of the countries you mentioned, doesn't mean that people (men especially) don't have multiple partners. That law affects less than 1% of people in Iran, Egypt, and Jordan. Illegal except for Muslims/Islamic provinces. True, but that illegality came in the same document that acknowledged men and women as equal for the first time ever O: Moll I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy but there is no evidence for polygamy having been preferred by the majority of the Earth's population at any point in time. Please link me some stuff otherwise. |
|
|
|
moll(other female){owned slav}
|
2 years ago •
Jul 27, 2022
Knightsundere wrote: moll wrote: So Egypt. Iran, and Jordan that had to literally has a law to limit multiple wives to only 4 and they have to get a license to do so? In India, polygamy was outlawed when the English ruled over the country and that was because they pushed Christian doctrine onto the country. Turkey only made it illegal in the 1920s, but it doesn't stop men from having mistresses (2nd wife). Just because it's illegal to have multiple wives in some of the countries you mentioned, doesn't mean that people (men especially) don't have multiple partners. That law affects less than 1% of people in Iran. Illegal except for Muslims/Islamic provinces. True, but that illegality came in the same document that acknowledged men and women as equal for the first time ever O: Moll I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy but there is no evidence for polygamy having been preferred by the majority of the Earth's population at any point in time. Please link me some stuff otherwise. Sorry, I can't link you the text book that I read for the Anthropology class I took a few years ago nor the professor that taught the class. But it's moot because what I suspect you keep trying to prove is regarding multiple spouses at one time and not multiple partners. Just because a man can't have multiple wives doesn't mean he doesn't have multiple partners....and vice versa. If that were the case, the divorce/remarriage rate wouldn't be so high. But thanks for the lively discourse. |
|
|
| Defender(dom male) |
2 years ago •
Jul 27, 2022
Re: Monogamy Bunnie wrote: Esther Perel said:
‘Monogamy used to mean one person for life. Now monogamy means one person at a time.’ I came across this quote, and couldn’t help but agree with it. Any thoughts? If you have observed this same shift in mentality, why do you personally, think it has occurred? If Esther Perel was referring to a shift in Western culture, rather than global culture, then it makes more sense to me. Why do I think it has occurred? I think it has simply moved in step with the "you can have it all" - and the "do it because you can, rather than because you should" ethos that is common these days. I don't think you can take this shift in monogamy, in isolation from what else is happening in wider society. For some people of course, monogamy is spelt "monotony." 😜 |
|
|
|
moll(other female){owned slav}
|
2 years ago •
Jul 28, 2022
"Monotony?" That's funny and true.
|
|
|
Solace(dom male)
|
2 years ago •
Jul 28, 2022
Hi Bunnie,
I apologize if replies have been less germane than you prefer. I concur with Esther Perel. Though I struggle without real facts and numbers to support the girth of my conclusions, I too feel that the definition is not as it once was. If pushed I would encourage us to examine the ratio of divorces over the years and review the hookup mentality that seems common in the dating scene. If the definition ever was to hold a single person uniquely and forever, that certainly isn't how its used now. I feel the cups I drink out of are as monogamous as relationships. Just waiting to be filled again when empty. Due to how narrow my scope of the world is, I will only hazard a guess for the USA, my home ground. I could actually suggest many reasons for this. One, my nation is not as firmly grounded in the religious ideals it was founded with. Ideals that would have encouraged marriage for life and discouraged play outside of marriage. Two, Womens rights have given women significantly more power and resources thus reducing the number of one sided relationships staying glued together. Three medical advances have significantly reduced the risk and impact of accidents caused by bedside fun such as children (birth control) and sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Four, technology such as dating apps and even on some level here which could with a callous/reductive eye be seen to reduce people to items in a store. If the item is broken or doesn't suit your needs, you toss it back and find another. Five there are a number of social programs and even significant tax breaks for single parents that make the decision to break more financially feasible. I hope this has at least provided you with some measure of novel thought for your pondering. |
|
|
RoseUndressed(sub female)
|
2 years ago •
Jul 28, 2022
I feel there has been a big shift in thinking over the past few decades. When going through a separation, I said to my Grandma - 'I'm not happy.'
Her response is that, in her day, happiness wasn't a thing. It's had me thinking, for a very long time, what happiness is. But I do think, perhaps, the search for happiness, and the unwillingness to settle for less than that, has been a big driver behind the shift in definition of monogamy. |
|
|
|
moll(other female){owned slav}
|
2 years ago •
Jul 29, 2022
RoseUndressed wrote: I feel there has been a big shift in thinking over the past few decades. When going through a separation, I said to my Grandma - 'I'm not happy.'
Her response is that, in her day, happiness wasn't a thing. It's had me thinking, for a very long time, what happiness is. But I do think, perhaps, the search for happiness, and the unwillingness to settle for less than that, has been a big driver behind the shift in definition of monogamy. That is a very astute post, RoseUndressed. People in past generations married for a lot different reasons than they do today. I'm not stating that people never married for love nor fell in love with the person they married....eventually, but up until the end of the 20th century, most people married for convenience, money, to combine fortunes, and to prevent war between nations/tribes/societies. That still happens today, but for the most part, people want to marry for love. I've heard stories from my maternal grandmother about her mother marrying to get out of Europe during WWII and I know my maternal grandmother married to get away from her mother. It's wonderful that my mother married my father for love. |
|
|