Don’t know, brother.
“My experience is that the act of sex, at its best, is a gateway which connects two souls. I interpret this as a liminal, sacred experience. The Bible warns to ‘guard your heart’. Whether one believes in a Christian God, or not, I think this is sound advice.”
What does this have to do with monogamy?
AJ,
Sorry, I missed your post yesterday. Good question. I’ll refer back to the OP “Is monogomy natural, or unnatural”?
I think that from a legal perspective, certainly not. (i.e. There exists no necessary reason, imo, based on human nature, to legally codify monogomy, especially in the name of it being ‘natural’.)
From a cultural norms perspective, certainly not. (i.e. There exists no necessary reason, imo, based on human nature, to assume that ‘common practice’ is correct for all.)
For me, based on my own experiences, I think that from a SPIRITUAL perspective, monogomy MAY be natural. At least it seems that way to me. So far, monogomy has been the most fulfilling.
But, I don’t rule out the possibility that having many partners is VERY spiritual, as experienced. After all, many people—such as yourself, for example—believe there exists great benefit in non-monogomy. Indeed, above you are emphatic about it. But I don’t think you’ve specifically identified it. What is this great benefit you allude to?
Well, it seems prima facie that if you could enjoy a spiritual* benefit from one relationship, you could do the same with multiple (concurrent) relationships. So I’m wondering why you think this is not the case. Is it based on your personal experience with both?
*Whatever one will take that to mean.
Was that a passive aggressive insult? Or were you saying he has to verify human experience empiracally?
I’m confused.
First, I’ve never had multiple simultaneous sexual relationships, so I cannot comment on this.
Second, let’s talk about rubber + road. What does prima facie have to to with sex and spirituality?
I told you my experience, re: monogomy, in this regard. You are a champion of non-monogomy. I’ve asked you a question about your experience. Please speak up if you have it. That is, if you’ve experienced deeply felt connections (i.e. anything that you would honestly characterize as ‘spiritual’, however you conceive of this) in the context of multiple simultanous sexual relationships, please report your positive experiences so that others may learn from you.
I don’t care about what you think or what you suppose. What do you KNOW?
Wow, this is obviously a touchy subject. If you’d like more info or think I meant something insulting, please PM me. I intended my comments only to further the discussion at hand regarding the possible connection between male-female relationship norms and statism.
For the record, yes, I’ve felt what I think you will call spiritual benefit from multiple concurrent relationships. The initial claim seemed to tacitly imply that there was something about concurrent relationships that precluded spiritual benefit, so I simply asked that that tacit implication be spelled out so we could evaluate it. (By the way, “prima facie” just means “on its face” or “taken at face value.”)
AJ,
I didn’t mean to suggest that I don’t value your opinon. I do. Give it, if you please.
edit: too late…nevermind…intently reading your response now.
By the way, I do get the standard view, that I guess is something in the spirit of, “If you really loved her, you wouldn’t want anyone else.”
I’ve been there. However, I think this view might be based on the barrage of suggestive influences all around us in movies, TV, and society in general, not to mention government law (I believe “seduction” is still illegal in some states). So I am just wondering if you can explicate a line of logic on how you arrived at that conclusion. I arrived at my conclusions through experience, but of course my conclusions therefore only (necessarily) apply to myself.
AJ,
Yes, sorry. I lost my patience with you because, at that point in the discussion I had asked you at least two different questions, which you chose not to answer; meanwhile, myself answering at least two of yours. I asked my questions of you, because I specifically wanted to hear your answer. After failing to answer my likely third inquiry, and in addition placing upon me the further burden of answering yet another of your questions…well, you maybe better understand my frustration. [edit: Still, I shouldn’t have lost my patience with you.] So, accept my apologies, please. Also, if I have failed to address your concern with this, please feel to PM me also.
Anways, to the matter at hand:
(1) re: the West’s cultural imperative of heterosexual monogomy and the West’s simultaneous cultural impulse toward statism
I don’t see the connection. What is it, in your view?
(2) re: human sexuality/spirituality regarding monogomy vis-a’-vis non-monogomy
Cool. Thanks for sharing your experience. I’m not surprised to hear you say this. By far I’m no expert, but in my limited direct experience with PUA stuff, it is POTENT when applied properly, imho.
(3) re: prima facie
Yea, I had to look it up on Wikipedia to make sure I understood the definition. I think one of the definitions is “on its face”. And I think another one is “self-evident”. lol. Yea, we completely whiffed that one.
Anyways, cheers.
Edit: For the record, the disagreement I spoke of was in reference to your argument regarding the connection between the 2 Western cultural imperatives of monogomy and state.
AJ, what are those life-changing sentences and insights you gave to people?
I arrived at my conclusions through experience, but of course my conclusions therefore only (necessarily) apply to myself.
Yes, me too.
I agree with your deep suspicion of the mainstream barrage. I’m not a fan myself, either.
Whoever said the PUA community is libertarian was engaging in wishful thinking. PUAs are interested in sleeping with as many beautiful women as possible, and cheating on them if necessary. They are more likely to be unethical asses who think with their penises - all the time - than libertarians (although libertarians can also be assholes). The objective of the PU community is to get good at picking up women, and the libertarian characteristics of personal responsibility they encourage are only a means to this end.
I’ve had both polyamourous relationships and monogamous relationships. I’d argue that there is lots of suggestive influence around us in movies, TV, and society in general that directly CLASHES with the idea of monogamous relationships not propping it up. The number one influence and conditioning being Pornography and the general depiction in movies/tv/magazines that a woman’s physical beauty is where her value lies and when that programming hits deep enough its very easy to get bored of one woman(after all if you’re masturbating to porn, you’re beginning to associate sex with random women with a certain look and certain behavior). In these cases to me, intimacy is not only lost- it never even began.
This is just my experience, but in the poly relationships I had- everyone single person involved was highly addicted to pornography(including myself at the time), and although there was some sense of intimacy at times- it was nowhere near as deep as any monogamous relationship I’ve had.
bcyclwutztht:
(1) re: the West’s cultural imperative of heterosexual monogomy and the West’s simultaneous cultural impulse toward statism
I don’t see the connection. What is it, in your view?
I generally agree with what Clayton wrote on this issue above.
As to what specific benefits I experience, I’m not originally claiming to experience any benefits over monogamous relationships, which is why I haven’t addressed that claim besides referring vaguely to my own experience. I was simply asking why you believe - correct me if this interpretation is wrong - that non-monogamous relationships are harmful to that spiritual aspect you refer to.
EDIT: I thought of a specific benefit, just to satisfy your curiosity. Having multiple ongoing relationships definitely keeps me positive, confident and on track even if something is “going wrong” with one particular female I’m seeing.
They were tailored to each individual. PM me if you’d like to know for a specific case. I feel I’m treading on thin ice discussing it here, as the connection to political theory becomes a little tenuous when we get into specifics.
I think these are valid observations. On the other side, one could yet argue that the market for pornography is partially fueled by the push toward monogamy (I have several married friends who wax poetic about their copious porn consumption; I only view it on my off days). Sexuality is a complex issue.
As for poly-relationships not working out, I hasten to add that there are (at least) two sides to a relationship. Even if I consider my view enlightened, a given woman may not, and may think she’s merely compromising. When your partners are not fully enthusiastic about the arrangement (but would still rather have “10% of you” than “100% of another guy”), there can be issues that most guys simply are not prepared to deal with, “enlightened” or not. In my case, though - as you might have guessed - I’ve developed some pretty incredible relationship management skills after ten years of doing this, so it works out great for me.
Once again, I definitely do not recommend poly-relationships, cheating on your spouse/girlfriend, etc. as general advice. I would only say that there are a great many guys who would do well not to focus on any one woman.
Beyond the first person one marries, everything else is just diminishing returns for the next person you go for.
Heh. Are relationships utility?
Perhaps there is a relationship monster, who receives higher satisfaction for each partner consumed. Let us all sacrifice our spouses to increase the average satisfaction gained in society!
Really now, though, I think that “focusing” on any one partner at all isn’t necessarily unnatural. As it is, people value everything at a different value than everything else, so some people would put some things (job, possessions, children) before a partner, potentially. The same would occur in open relationships. If “X” had 3 partners, (s)he would value them all for different reasons and at different levels.
If everyone was absolutely open and we could assume that every person was in a relationship with everyone else at any given time, then we would gain an average level of satisfaction from the number of active partners we would have. These active partnerships would appear or disappear in an effort for an individual to reach “equilibrium” in this… “Love Economy.” Of course, I am totally theorizing, with no specific concrete examples to support my thoughts. But it is an interesting thing to mull over.
Well put, I think the main reason institutions of marriage have benefited us even to this day is explained quite nicely here:
Shared consumption of things like a car or home could be some economic factors that perpetuate monogamy for financial reasons.