@Arphaxad007
In fact, I think people can choose to only create relationships that never have misery, belaboring, and suffering.
I found this statement interesting. I disagree with it, but only from personal experience. I'm sure good intentions try to manifest such a relationship, but soon someone loads the dishwasher the wrong way and conflict arises. Suffering is a part of life, for better or worse. The person or people you choose to spend life with have to share some suffering too.
Unless you had something else in mind about suffering? Have you had relationships without misery and belaboring? Genuine curiosity, I'd like to have one of those too
@Big_Chris
Your dishwasher loading style conflict is a wonderful example of the practical impossibility of conflict free cohabitation. I recommend against it (cohabitation).
Conflict free relationships are easy with clearly defined boundaries and agreements - and nothing to fight over or dispute (like living quarters). Any relationship where such contests of dominance is a part is not worth having, IMO.
The notion that one person can control another's behavior - especially in their absence - is delusional, IMO. The people I am emotionally and physically intimate with are completely separate beings. None of us is a member of some fictional entity (a couple, throuple or other loss of autonomy). We enjoy each others company until we don't and then we have our wonderfully solitary refuges to go to.
@Arphaxad007 thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see how your relationships maintain a space for individual freedom.
Speaking for myself, I prefer cohabitation despite the pitfalls of interpersonal conflict. I enjoy sharing a bed, and it's more practical than hanging a toothbrush.
I can see the appeal of drawing a thicker border between personal lives, and I think having a separate zone for yourself is necessary.
I agree that you can't control people, though I see it as less a test of dominance and more like mutual compromise. In theory, both people have pet peeves and both try to reduce undue stress upon the other.
You say that conflict-free relationships are easy but I think you have something really special, not many people can achieve such a peaceful balance.
https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/you-2-0-when-did-marriage-become-so-hard/
Recently heard this podcast which seems do pertinent to this topic.
@MaineCuddle I totally agree! Thank you for sharing!!!❤️🤗😎
@Big_Chris & @Arphaxad007
Dang! When I grow up, I hope I'm even ¼ as well adjusted and stable as one must be to realize such a zen-like state of radical acceptance in their deeper relations with others (and themselves)!!
Truly impressive!!
Edit/Addition ~ I love how this thread has been predominantly, "drama repulsed"!! With a topic that could have swiftly moved into grounds for separation, let alone divorce, I'm really impressed with the back and forth, clarifications, validation, acceptance of other's pov, etc. and no custody battle over who's best to parent the ideas...
It's so refreshing!!
Anyway, I just felt I should say so instead of hoarding all the warm fuzzies I was feeling. 🥰 Thanks all!! 💓
Reading everything that @Arphaxad007 has written made me realize how much I miss the mess.
How much I miss the friction of humans that care for each other despite, and in some ways because of, all the ways that we drive each other mad.
Living alone might be serene, but being a Taoist I feel about perfect serenity the same way I feel about the Buddhist ideal of nirvana (no wind)…
How boring.
I think I need a bit of dissonance to truly appreciate the harmonies.
My life lately has been utterly devoid of equal human contact.
Reading this, and thinking about past relationships, past lives, and past heartaches has reminded me how important all of that is.
ALL.
Even the hurts, even the scars.
@CharlesThePoet - I’d hit the “like” button on that.
I have a lot of poly friends. They often have a lot of drama. One of them asked me if I considered myself poly and I said no, I’m just an old fashioned slut: I do what I want, with whom I want, when I want.
Fact is, I’ve been single way longer than I ever expected and I don’t care for it one bit. Living alone for this past year and a half has been hell and has sucked all the joy from my life.
I don’t think monogamy is going away. On the other hand, I also think “open” relationships are probably here to stay. I don’t think one is inherently better than the other. I think people get to decide for themselves what works for them.
I think that if one stays involved with a person for any length of time and there’s any depth to the relationship, sooner or later there’s going to be some sort of conflict or pain. I don’t see the avoidance of pain as a marker of the health of a relationship. I see the ability to navigate pain and conflict as a measure of the health of a relationship.
I’ve been in a long-distance relationship with someone I only get to see every few years for 15+ years. There was never any conflict because there was never any opportunity for it. About a year ago, some stuff came down that created a rift and its only recently that we’ve started sorting it out. In spite of the pain, it’s opened up an opportunity for a deeper level of communication. I welcome that. It’s led to personal and relational growth.
The subject of children has been absent from this discussion. When a child comes into the picture, you cannot retreat to your solitude at will. A child is a long term commitment.
Commitment is making an agreement to continue to hang in there with someone/something even when one doesn’t feel like it. I make a commitment to show up for an appointment tomorrow even if I don’t feel like it at the time. I make a commitment to watch someone’s aging parent overnight and show up and do it even if I’d rather do something else. There are some kinds of relationships one can only have if one is willing to make commitments. The only way we can achieve our goals is by making commitments.
@Babichev
Entirely accurate.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with never committing to anyone, at least if you are open and up front about it.
But my commitment to caring for my mother is easily the hardest thing I’ve ever done, and also the best.
I can’t imagine being a version of myself that didn’t commit to her care.
And I know that one day I will look back upon this with great pride, even through my grief.
Yes, commitment brings suffering and pain, but it also brings growth and satisfaction.
@CharlesThePoet & @Babichev ~ 🥰🥰🥰
Loving all of that up there!! And (((HUGS))) to you both!!
@Babichev Great points! 👍🏿
@CharlesThePoet Caring for your mother is honorable and happy that you have the heart ❤️ to do so. It makes common sense to care for family but sadly not everyone makes choices/commitments to care for others needs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-without-limits/201304/the-truth-about-polyamory
@blisscuddles that was an interesting podcast on the history of marriage. And it doesn't even touch on the fact that when marriage was an arrangement for property, combined work effort, and repopulation, not love, women who were married were usually expected to be monogamous but men had an array of opportunities for sex outside of their marriage. Marriage wasn't necessarily for sexual monogamy.
@MaineCuddle Agreed. The patriarchal structure and gender role assignment allowed that to be “normal”. With those roles being no longer the case and expectations of a single person (in a marriage) to fulfill all our emotional and physical needs make it hard on marriages. Poly allows way to “socially diversify” those needs which could help marriages without expecting one person to be it all.
Someone posted about being able to have relationships with no conflicts Any relationship will have conflict. The unicorn utopia scenario of never having a single conflict only exists in the projected world of social media where every couple or family has the perfect day, perfect vacation, beautiful smiles.
Now that we have wills, it's not AS important to have ones "undeniable" son be the air of an estate (for many), though courts see challenges often.
It'd be interesting to do some genetic testing around all this to see how often one's "son" wasn't. But, oh the scandal!! Plus back in the day, it was the women's fault if she drew the eye of a man and he raped her, so... Probably not the best use of scientific resources.
Anyway, expecting faithfulness (in any type of relatiomship) is unreasonable if you're not meeting each other's needs. Some will stay, and endure heartache and misery, but the numbers indicate that likelihood will continue to dwindle over time (here in the US). I have no clue about trends elsewhere, but women here, declaring they're done being tolerant of the intolerable intolerance of men, continues to go up despite the consequences.
Complete belief and faith in monogamy is a mirage encouraged so powerful people and institutions—government, insurance, legal, religious—can codify, control and market to massive swaths of humanity. Meanwhile, these same institutions tell you that people can change. If people can change, then so can relationships, so the perpetuated lie is exposed if you apply that simple logic. How you navigate and manage that change is through communication and tolerance. There is no cosmic secret here and no one should judge, but there should also never be two separate set of rules for males, females or same sex couples regardless of your amory or gamous.
@CharlesThePoet your poignant bittersweet savoring of human connection/conflict could have been the perfect conclusion to this thread. Beautiful.
@Babichev I'm so glad you bring up child rearing. I have completely shared that value that their development is the highest priority that a parent "should" have. But far more often than not, IMO, children become pawns of vindictiveness in the irrational pathetic failure of the conventional general partnerships of coupling. Even if couples compromise their ideals with each other on how children should be raised, the net effect is a muddied blurring in contrast with clear goals. I consider coupling for child rearing (more often than not) to be tantamount to child abuse. I am pro single parenting.
@FunCartel I share your critical view of the mirage of monogamy, yet I have been justly criticized for shaming it in another forum. It does work for some and will work for some, IMO, but less so as time passes. So says my crystal ball ;-)
Sexuality shaming in Western culture (thus now globalized) was well explained by Foucault. As a political/economic/social leverage it has kept many institutions in place. But recent history suggests that shackle is being broken (the rise of the queer rainbow). Who and how people are fucking is becoming less relevant. The monogamy mirage is very effective to keep people distracted from other political hierarchical trends (instability of general partnerships is perfect to divide and conquer). That gives it some staying power. About 50 more years is my best guess.
@Arphaxad007 On the child rearing issue… the link to an article I posted from Psychology Today states that there is no evidence that children reared by polyamory couples lag behind in any developmental category—emotional, intellectual, etc.
And I read your posts on monogamy and I did not take it as shaming at all. I thought you were pointing out the fallacies of monogamy. Others kind of took it as a justification for cheating which you weren’t espousing at all, but I thought it was interesting that many of the pro-monogamous arguments were from the younger 30 and unders. I probably would have argued the same way back then. But then you discover 20 years is a long time with one person and you grow but sometimes you grow in different directions. There are so many factors you just don’t see when you are young, that you thoroughly believe will never happen to you. Being young and entering the initial stages of a long term relationship is akin to driving up a steep hill without the benefit of knowing what’s on the other side.
@FunCartel I was also really surprised to see some very rigid monogamy or busy views from the under 30 group in this thread. I truly thought some of the words were coming straight from the 50's (time frame not age). Anywhosers that was very interesting to me. But I supposed you're right about the naivety factor.
@FunCartel that article is a great indicator being from 8 years ago! Thanks for posting it. Progressive is what is happening. Yay!
My comments that were cutting/critical (a wee bit shaming) of monogamy were in a FB forum discussing the same topic.
That under 30 pro-monogamy response is interesting. Inexperience is one explanation for it. I'd speculate that isolation/loneliness and soulmate myths are others. Our species really likes to imagine we know what is coming so we find saviors/prophets (soulmates) to believe in.
The article is okay but I think it puts forth at least one inaccurate point. While it may be true that for much of history monogamy has been used to control women, it’s also true that most hunter-gatherer societies practice monogamy.
I’m not saying this to favor or discredit any form of relationship, just to keep the information accurate.
Sexuality shaming is not just the domain of the West. There is plenty of it to go around in a diverse number of cultures.
I find the claim that coupling for child rearing tantamount to child abuse to be extreme to the point of disturbing. Couples who have children are assumed to be child abusers? Single parents are not? Okaaay . . .
I am certain that any thorough review of the anthropological literature will show that Hunter Gatherers rarely (if ever) practice lifelong sexually monogamous relationships. Their tendency is far more group oriented and multimating of some sort is the norm. "Sex At Dawn" by Ryan and Jetha thoroughly reviews such findings with plenty of verifiable citations of anthropological literature.
While I can appreciate that the mainstream coupling bias might find a view that "coupling is (more often than not) tantamount to child abuse" to be disturbing, I would suggest you consider that even in the "amicable" divorces/dissolutions that the disruption of the children's routine alone is unhealthy and in the case of "irreconcilable differences" (the majority) resources are spent in legal battles that could be spent on the children's development.
When the majority of coupling brings these, at best, inefficiencies, then participation in that system is to accept the likelihood of trauma for said children.
That is tantamount to abuse, IMO.
Single parenthood does not run that risk. Support networks are easily developed that have no risk of custody battles. Villages can raise kids. Courts cannot.
I do not imagine I can convince you to believe the way I do, but do hope your disturbance is somewhat assuaged.
One of the (many) problems with looking back at humanity’s distant history as guidance to the future is that we simply can’t understand the pressures that basic survival placed upon them.
There was a time when the maternal mortality rate was as high as 10%.
When child mortality rates (6 and younger) were above 50%.
It’s basically impossible for us to have any idea the kind of social, and eventually cultural, pressure that put on those who lived.
How do you cope in a world with no birth control, no pre-natal care, no antibiotics, and no germ theory?
A world where slightly more than 1 in 10 childbirths ended in the death of the mother.
And even those infants that survived birth had less than half a chance to make it to age seven.
It’s insane and horrifying to even think about…
Belief is the acceptance of something as true in the absence of evidence to support it or in contradiction to evidence. I avoid belief.
The single parents I know do not find it so easy to develop support systems. Maybe it’s different in your corner of the world.
To bring a child into the world is to accept the possibility of trauma - the death of a parent, sibling, friend, war, famine, assault, harassment, etc. That does not stop people from bringing children into the world. If the possibility of trauma dictates that one is irresponsible for bringing a child into a marriage, then having any children at all under any circumstances is child abuse. Children of single parents still suffer abuse at the hands of their own custodial parent, too. Single parenting does not prevent trauma or child abuse. I see lots of upheaval in non-monogamous relationships that cause trauma to children. Monogamous couples do not have a corner on that market. In fact, risk for child abuse and child neglect is high among single mothers and is lowered when there is a second parent involved. Don’t take my word for it, search the scientific literature.
Many scholars in the field have been critical of the book Sex at Dawn. It was rejected for publication by academic publishers because it did not meet their criteria. It was written for the popular press. As such, I don’t consider it authoritative.
I think the apparent blanket condemnation of monogamy and idealization of non-monogamy is a personal prejudice which you’re entitled to but I don’t see it based on solid evidence. Shunning cohabitation is a luxury afforded only to the affluent and even those who can afford it often choose cohabitation because humans are a social species; living alone is a completely modern construct practiced by a minority.
Humans depend on cooperation for survival. Cooperation depends on sometimes sublimating one’s personal desires for the good of the group. Does not matter if that group is a bonded pair, a family, a village, a city, a nation, a planet. To think the ideal is to live without the compromise required when we have a responsibility to others is self-centered. I don’t buy it.
Thank you @Babichev for your thoughtful observations
I agree that Sex At Dawn is a popular press book written to refute the "standard narrative" (which includes monogamy). Its conclusions are not fact, but the evidence/studies/literature it cites is very relevant to how incorrect your assertion that hunter gatherers are also monogamous is. I would add that other eminent (and popular) professors also acknowledge that our species evolved in groups, not pairs. Historian professor Yuval Harari is one (his credentials include Cambridge/Oxford).
My rather provocative assertion that coupling is tantamount to child abuse is made only on the single point that bringing children into a widely recognized unstable arrangement with a greater than 51% likelihood that they will suffer through a disruption is abusive from my perspective. All of the other hazards you mention are far less likely.
Or course, anyone can abuse children. I won't any further make the case that single parenthood is better in this thread that is about the poly/mono future of relationships.
The article that @FunCartel posted from Psychology Today suggests poly is no better or worse than traditional coupling regarding child rearing.
The high failure rate of the institution of coupling is an excellent example of individuals insisting that they are right (another way to say "selfish") and dissolving their group.
Only time will tell what relationship styles will become the norm.
@biancalovecraft Another metric that women aren't exceeding men in is suicide rate, but thank you for being so brazen in your sexism, cynicism and desire to make every possible topic a women's issue.
Making sure you read the forum rules about personal attacks, @JoeWlo . Do not. As of this post, do not tag or interact with @biancalovecraft on this thread. Keep it civil and courteous, or welcome to forum timeout. [-Sid]
“The article that @FunCartel posted from Psychology Today suggests that poly is no better or worse than traditional coupling regarding child rearing.”
Exactly. If marriage were bad for children, then children in those families should do worse than those raised in poly families but they don’t. Children in single parent families should do better than in two parent families but they don’t.
You’re claiming that raising a child in a two-parent monogamous family is child abuse and I don’t see the evidence that it’s worse for children than raising them in a single parent home, which you seemed to advocate because then you don’t have to compromise.
I don’t buy that poly relationships are inherently better than monogamous relationships, they are just different.
“ . . . our species evolved in groups, not pairs . . . “
I hope you are not thinking I’m suggesting that our species evolved as individual bonded pairs that were not within groups.
@JoeWlo I'm not sure how you got that from her post, much less only that, and your sarcasm is in stark contrast to reasoned discussion happening so far.
I'm all for more awareness of men's issues but you have done what you accused her of doing - rattling off a single cynical metric and making an otherwise diverse space about sexism.
Disagreement isn't against the rules, neither is derailment or sarcasm. But you're not gaining any allies this way.