Polygamy / Polyamory, thoughts?

[Dancer]

Originally Posted by riddlemethis

I'm not even talking about "perfect", whatever that is, I'm talking about parsimonious. Family dynamism is hard enough without layers of complexity added purely for the sake of satisfying a very small (in the scheme of things) aspect of practical life. I'd hazard that there's a modicum of logistical rationalism that went into the evolution of an essentially exclusive-family model of society (I won't say strictly monogamous b/c ppl fuck around all the time). Like democracy, it's the best of a bad bunch of options for most people I reckon. That's not to say I think other options ought be prohibited of course. I don't care how thin others want to divy up their emotional lives.

ETA: it's the last bit in your post immediately above that people are deplorably bad at though & the reason we need legislation around such things - adult relationships when they dissolve frequently do so into a morass of adults serving their own needs & using children as emotional pawns. The more adults involved the worse the potential mess?

Riddle, can you please explain what you mean by "very small in the scheme of things?"

It also appears that you think people in poly relationships have less 'full' emotional bonds. I'm interpreting your line "I don't care how thin others want to divy up their emotional lives." Have I interpreted that correctly?

Some recent posts made by a few people, appear to suggest that poly or open relationships are less functional, and the people involved are less considerate of their family/children's needs. Before I make any comments, I just want to make sure I have interpreted this correctly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[smiled]

I simply haven't had time to read through all the posts relating to this thread, but being a rather simplistic animal, my question is... what about love? Is this not driving force which leads one to polyamory? Why should one not love more than one partner? I have always believed that one is incapable of restraining love, and hence the reason for so many extra marital affairs occuring around us. Would it not be better, and more natural, to consider polyamory? Of course it is not for everyone, of course there are huge challenges to our egos, but I have known a couple of people in polyamorous relationships - I have never before seen such solid, open and loving relationships as exist between the principal partners. It's not about getting out there and banging as many people as you can - it's about open loving relationships. Can you love more than one of your children? So it should be with adults too.

[smiled]

Originally Posted by Dancer

Riddle, can you please explain what you mean by "very small in the scheme of things?"

It also appears that you think people in poly relationships have less 'full' emotional bonds. I'm interpreting your line "I don't care how thin others want to divy up their emotional lives." Have I interpreted that correctly?

Some recent posts made by a few people, appear to suggest that poly or open relationships are less functional, and the people involved are less considerate of their family/children's needs. Before I make any comments, I just want to make sure I have interpreted this correctly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hmmm... thanks for killing the thread, Dancer!

[Lilith]

Originally Posted by Dancer

Riddle, can you please explain what you mean by "very small in the scheme of things?"

It also appears that you think people in poly relationships have less 'full' emotional bonds. I'm interpreting your line "I don't care how thin others want to divy up their emotional lives." Have I interpreted that correctly?

Some recent posts made by a few people, appear to suggest that poly or open relationships are less functional, and the people involved are less considerate of their family/children's needs. Before I make any comments, I just want to make sure I have interpreted this correctly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Thanks for broaching that, Dancer. I read RMT's comment last week and felt a similar implication. I meant to reply to it then and ask for clarification, but got distracted by meatspace things.

[rayne]

Originally Posted by Lilith

Thanks for broaching that, Dancer. I read RMT's comment last week and felt a similar implication. I meant to reply to it then and ask for clarification, but got distracted by meatspace things.

Meatspace?

[Tom in Napa County CA]

I'm new at AFA and if I'm reading the dates on posts correctly then no one has posted since the 2010 publication of Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.

The authors make a case for polygamy, in the sense of sex with multiple partners without commitment, being the usual practice while humans were hunting and gathering. They say the practice stopped with the agricultural revolution when people perceived themselves as owners of the land they worked.

In 2012 Lynn Saxon published Sex at Dusk. Her purpose seems to be to attack the views of Ryan and Jetha. She overwhelmed me with data, much of it distantly related if related at all.

I won't review Ryan and Jetha's book here but a chapter titled Male Parental Investment persuaded me that when multiple males thought a woman's children might be theirs, those children would be better provided for.

Ryan and Jetha's book differs from most academic writing on sexual behavior; in several chapters they acknowledge that pleasure also motivated the behavior.

[aguster]

Originally Posted by Tom in Napa County CA

I won't review Ryan and Jetha's book here but a chapter titled Male Parental Investment persuaded me that when multiple males thought a woman's children might be theirs, those children would be better provided for.

I fail to see how this is possible. Living in the home country of Jerry Springer (you too btw), I only see multiple men fighting the woman over who's the true father, and none of them contributing much if anything at all. Hell, I see men who know they're the fathers, and not contributing anything. So, where does the male parental investment actually come in?

[EvilDRMike]

Originally Posted by aguster

I fail to see how this is possible. Living in the home country of Jerry Springer (you too btw), I only see multiple men fighting the woman over who's the true father, and none of them contributing much if anything at all. Hell, I see men who know they're the fathers, and not contributing anything. So, where does the male parental investment actually come in?

Well I never speak for others but I assure you that I provide for my children. Both financially and emotionally. I even support my wife likewise as due to the realities of our relative earning potentials the bulk of earning must fall to me leaving most of the child rearing to her. Not my ideal choice but them's the breaks. I'm not convinced that Jerry Springer is a fair reflection of the median position in US society or any other for that matter.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[borealis]

Pretty sure jerry Springer is mostly staged and half the bullshit shown there is not real/exaggerated beyond belief.

If you live in Springer country, ie the US, I'll mention that compared to most other first world countries you appear to have terrible outdated family laws in most states.

In Canada and I suspect Australia, the UK, etc., the emphasis after a relationship (leaving out situations where one partner is criminally violent, etc.) with children breaks up is on doing the best possible to ensure the children have an equal relationship with both parents. Joint custody is most common. The more well off parent, regardless of gender, may be required to pony up more cash towards the childrens' upkeep. It is quite ordinary for the father to end up being the primary caregiver.

I have not read all of this thread, just the first couple and last pages, since it came to the top with new posts. Something I noted in the first couple pages was the inevitable reference to men being driven to spread their genes and women to ensuring the best provider for their progeny. Personally I think that is a dangerously simplistic viewpoint in the light of what we actually see happening. Just to begin with it's obvious that large numbers of women fail to choose good providers and large numbers of men are steadfastly monogamous. I also think there's a great deal we've yet to understand about human reproductive behaviours, given the long period of time in which women and children were viewed as property, thus inhibiting natural expression of those behaviours because in essence the women couldn't usually choose what mate they ended up bearing children with.

I seriously doubt men or women enter polygamous or polyandrous relationships wrt evolutionary pressures. Poly relationships that are not based on some religious cult may be experimental - I've known way more polys that are in their explorative twenties than older than that. I've noticed (this is anecdotal) that successful long term polygamous relationships often involve women who were close friends or even sisters before the relationship began and there may be reasons for that (their own closeness, similar tastes in lovers, etc.). Polyandrous relationships appear to be more rare, but I have known several, all of them were threesomes, and the men involved were, for want of a better word, inclined to be domestic - that is, they were very settled individuals whose lives were centred around the home as opposed to an extensive social life.

[Tom in Napa County CA]

aguster, how valid is any comparison of hunter-gatherer behavior twelve thousand years ago with the behavior we see today?
The authors Ryan and Jetha also wrote of behavior becoming more competitive when those hunter-gatherer took up agriculture.