Ahem... in order to view my statements endorsing nonmonogamous prosexual systems of thought as an analysis that any other system was objectively wrong, one had to ignore or forget that:
1) I started with a large section on how to deal with the problem he faced, within the framework he currently held.
2) I transitioned with a "now for something completely different"
3) I included problems he would have to face with the new system.
That's your problem, not mine.
While I was boosting my personal system, it is not devoid of experience of other systems. That is why I was able to first explain how he could handle his current situation within his framework. I only went on to explain how he could move to another system which would free him of the troubles he was facing now.
And this is where I feel a little put off. He is suffering because of the results of monogamous anti-sex culture. It couldn't have happened without that viewpoint. The gf and friend would not have acted the way they did, and he would not have had to feel jealousy or anger at what happened. I'm not sure why you don't see I have every right to suggest my system would have provided "better" results in those kinds of situations... as it would not have led to the thing he was suffering from.
And yes it is breaking through shackles on one's behavior. Monogamy is a arbitrary restriction, and arbitrary expectation of restriction on one's actions as well as the actions of others. Outside of a God saying it is bad, there is no reason for choosing that as being something one must view as negative, except that is how one grew up learning about relationships and sex (within a Xian culture).
Here is an example, do you feel that it is liberating and or freeing someone's mental shackles when a woman in the MidEast realizes she does not have to cover herself from head to toe everytime she leaves the house? Same deal.
It is not to say she has been made better, or that her system was wrong, but her range of movement has been expanded. She is more free.
In the case of sexual mores monogamy and anti-sex sentiment is not as natural, that is it does not arise from normal human conduct, and so creates some negative situations that would not arise otherwise. Thus my system is "better", or produces "better" results in those situations. And I certainly can talk that way.
But I was saddened to see you return to two of the arguments we have gone over at least twice before and you have been proven wrong both times. I am now creating a canned response, as it seems you will continue to present these arguments despite being refuted. Very disappointing...
Canned response to schraf's continually repeated fallacies:
1) Naturalness of monogamy to humans...
Let's use as a reference the curious info provided at WikipediaTo start with let's have the arguments they make against polygamy as our nature...
Although modern groups that advocate polyamorous relationships attempt to construct historical or archaeological evidence as favouring these types of relationships as "natural", it is impossible to portray human relationships as simplistically as this. Humanity's closest relatives, the bonobo and the common chimpanzee display very different types of sexual behaviour - chimpanzees favour fairly rigid hierarchical relationships while bonobos are openly promiscuous. Other close human relatives such as marmosets and gibbons are more or less monogamous in their habits. It should also be noted that the Neandertal lived in small groups revolving around a single breeding couple.
So here they are discrediting making arguments to what is found in nature, on the basis that two of our closest relatives exhibit different sexual behavior, suggesting we cannot know which we took after. Then adds speculation on the sexual practices of Neandertals.
While most pre-modern societies exhibited varying degrees of polygamy, in most instances, pair-bonding was more commonplace than not. It is interesting to observe that even in cultures that permit polygamy, its practice may nevertheless be discouraged. The Islamic Qu'ran, for example, suggests men restrict themselves to one wife: "If you have more than one wife, you will never be able to treat them equitably...and if you cannot treat them equitably [then you should not engage in the practice at all]."
Then this admits most have it only to then appeal to something wholly irrelevant, which is that couples can form within such societies, as well as bringing in a monotheistic culture's discouragement of the practice (which is only partly true anyway) as a sign that polygamy is not really practiced, even if it exists in most cultures?
In any case all of this is to ignore the preceding facts...
Historically, monogamy was much less practised than polygamy (specifically polygyny ). Mostly because of European expansion, monogamy is more popular than it was ever before. See article about polygamy for details.
as well as...
Note also that existence of a legally monogamous relationship (marriage) is no guarantee of a monogamous one in fact. Some societies have formally or semiformally recognized that married persons may have other sexual partners outside of the marriage relationship, while in societies that do not condone this practice it is nevertheless not unusual.
This evidence should point to which animal species we are closer to representing "by nature", rather than allowing them to throw up their hands and say we can't tell.
In fact, long thought "monogamous" animals are actually only pair-bonded for raising offspring and sharing resources, and not sexually monogamous. Even ape and monkey species which include herding of females to one male, beyond the obvious point that the male is obviously not engaging in monogamy, it is a fact that the women are generally kept in line in order to prevent them from having sex with other males. It is not that they naturally stick with one guy because that is the love of her life.
In addition, even within monogamous cultures, most actually practice serial monogamy, which sort of betrays the "nature" of actual human sexuality.
Thus, it is true that historically humans are not born to be monogamous and there is no evolutionary reason for it having arisen or maintaining it now. At least there is absolutely NO evidence for it beyond speculation by monogamists, countered by some evidence to the contrary. Yes humans may not choose to, or be able to, have more than one relationship (sexual or other) given circumstances, but that does not indicate our general nature. We end up having sexual interests in other partners and for the most part accepted this within life, until monotheistic sexual mores were impressed on other cultures.
2) "Reliable, safe birth control (and effective protection from STD's) is what allows you the luxury of your philosophy and moral system... So, I don't think you are as natural as you think you are WRT sex." (i.e. monogamy was natural because it prevented pregnancy and disease, whereas the illusion of people having sex with more than one partner is only a recent phenomenon because of good sexual protection).
+ There are many other forms of sex than vaginal sex, which is the only form of sex which leads to pregnancy, and its been known for millennia that these other forms can be practiced and indeed were practiced. The pill would have had no effect on those.
+ Taking care of children that were not one's own was a common enough practice and still is. Illegitimacy has grown with the rise of monogamous moral standards fostered by a specific monotheistic strain of sexual morality. Polygamy generally takes care of its children. Only in a monogamous system would a male need to disavow his duties to a child in order to move on to a new mate. You are tarnishing another system with a fault of your own.
+ Protection from STDs, as opposed to preventing pregnancy was a concern to people outside the monogamous and can be done. The argument that todays medical system makes promiscuous sex safer (which is different than polygamous sex anyway) does not somehow show evidence that people were less promiscuous in the past. History actually shows otherwise. Just reading the Bible ought to give you an idea of how promiscuous human sexuality was, despite not having the same medical treatments. Or read the accounts of sexual practices of those cultures prudish European explorers encountered and missionaries had to civilize. Ironically it was the explorers from monogamous cultures who ended up spreading STDs to the promiscuous ones and not the other way around. Can you think why that would be?
+ For your information here are two links on the history of the condom. It kind of shows how long humans have been trying to prevent disease and pregnancy as a result of promiscuous sexual activity:
External (male) condoms | Be in the KNOW,
Oeps.... Please note these indicate that the first use was about disease.
+ In the end I do not need condoms, nor the pill to have as much promiscuous sex as I want. And it all depends on the type of sex I want to have, which mandates the use of the Pill anyway. People in the past had the same capability I have today, and indeed have less dangerous diseases to worry about.
...
Please spare me the "humans are evolved to be monogamous" and "its only recent medical advances that lead to promiscuity, or your ability to be promiscuous" based arguments in the future. They have been refuted. Clearly they have been refuted.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
. But please understand I appreciate everyone here's efforts to help me in some way!
™ Version 4.2
