Connection between love and sex?

[JDaniel]

And I suppose a vow of silence and leading the life of a hermit is also a sign of strength of character, not just a retreat from dealing with the world… Really and truly, does sharing your thoughts with more than one person make your mind impure? If not, why not? I have yet to see any adequate explanation for why sex is considered the only expression of intimacy that must be kept exclusively for one person - that is, any explanation that doesn’t ultimately devolve into considerations of private possession, paternity certainty and property inheritance.

Sair:

Do you think that the human toll from single-parenting is good? Do you think the human toll of parent-less children is good? Do you think the venereal disease problem in some parts of the world is good? Do you think there are good natural reasons why many of the higher animals, besides mankind, take one mate for life? Do you think there would come a problem if more and more people who were related as brothers and sisters bore children together?

Do you think there are plausible reasons, or do you actually think it’s just an excuse for being sexually indiscriminate? No matter how many times I’ve pointed out that it’s not a matter of mere sexual variety, but relationship variety that, when successful, benefits all involved, you keep coming back to the notion that it’s all about the sex.

That’s fair. But, if the relationship devolves into sex, then is it still a benefit to all involved?

As a person who for a while was involved in animal breeding (e.g., dogs, rats, mice, birds) I have witnessed the effects of in-breeding. Have you?

I think you’ll find that these ideals are shared by many folks who happen to be polyamorous.

I’ll bet.

Polyamorists commit themselves to more than one person. I don’t see any reason to expect that spiritual unity is untainted with a single sex partner, but tainted for any additional partner.

That is your perspective, your point of view. As a theory, or hypothesis, it must remain an eternal one.

That doesn’t make much sense.

Which doesn’t make much sense?

Our culture expects people to choose one person - preferably of the opposite sex - with whom to share our lives. Except this is an ideal that manifestly doesn’t work for everyone.

Does it work for most? Or, for half? Or, for relatively none?

Great for the people who feel comfortable with it and have made a success of it - but too bad for the people who find that they are strongly attracted to someone in addition to their spouse.

Thus the aggrieved spouse gets to just grieve?

That’s an aspect of themselves they will just have to deny in order to fit into society’s (and/or religion’s) pre-cast mould.

Your hypothesis then is that each person in every pairing of people is OK with infidelity?

I would suggest, too, that sex is only a distraction (post-puberty, at least) when it is repressed and denied, and when it is considered - in practice, if not in theory - to be the most important aspect of an intimate relationship.

Yeah. I think you should try that theory out on a wife or husband that’s not of like mind, for whatever reasons.

Any way you style it, claiming that you can have a spiritual relationship with anyone and everyone you like, but a sexual relationship with only one, regardless of how many people you love, is putting sex in a more exalted position than any other expression of intimacy. No wonder it seems to cause people so much stress!

It’s just anecdotal on my part but from my experience there always, or for the most part, was more stress where there was a partner, in the relationship, that did not treat that relationship as unique. And I mean “unique” in every way.

Children look to the adults for love and guidance, because they’re part of the family. Why does it matter if all the adults have had sex with each other? Does that make them less than parental figures to the children?

And this controls the relationships of the parents, how?

Your argument here could be as valid for limiting the number of children you have as for confining your sexual intimacy to one person and one only.

Two quite different things. But, not from your viewpoint. Divorce would be the highest thing on my priorities list if somehow you and I were married. (But, I’m not that way!)

The fact that harmony is difficult to achieve doesn’t mean it’s impossible, or that we should not pursue it.

Yes. And, if the wife remains unhappy and inharmonious well simply whip her into shape. Literally.

Victoria Woodhull was not a polyamorist - she just called out the rest of her society for the double-standard that trapped women in often loveless marriages whilst their husbands’ mistresses and other dalliances were tacitly tolerated.

I rest my case.

Here we are some hundred or so years after her campaign, and not only have many of the freedoms she advocated become standard practice in Western nations, but polyamory is gaining a groundswell of support. I hardly think this suggests that we’ll be throwing in the towel any time soon.

I’d like to peruse that study.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t think secular marriages are social occasions? Ours certainly was.

Not a social occasion celebrated by a community with the same belief in the sanctity of marriage and the family.

Polyamory is based on the desire of more than two people to share their lives.

Your reference to duplicity suggests that polyamory commences after the wedding.

In traditional marriage, the woman formed part of the man’s personal property.

In genuinely Christian marriages the man and woman regard each other as equals in accordance with the teaching and example of Jesus.

Married women were, until relatively recently in Western society, not permitted to hold personal property in their own name - they were property.

That was and is a social - rather than Christian - belief and custom.

Wives were expected to tolerate their husbands’ affairs - in reality, they had no choice other than destitution and separation from their children. That was the reality.

The reality of husbands who failed to live up to Christian beliefs and values.

The only way to avoid such a risk altogether is never to enter into any intimate relationship.

Polyamorists increase the risks by extending the family to a community of men, women and children who could number twenty or more individuals.

I’ve never claimed that all polyamorous relationships work better than monogamous marriages - just that they provide a different perspective which on the one hand is free of some of the issues that plague monogamous relationships, and on the other hand has a whole different set of issues.

You stated “Polyamorists recognise jealousy for what it is and learn to deal with it and overcome it as if it is an inevitable consequence of sharing lovers.”

There must be a sense of insecurity when one never knows who the next lover will be or how much he or she will dominate the partner’s attention. Even with mutual agreement there must be an added element of uncertainty when there is freedom to choose a new lover at any time.

Jealousy is something that is tightly bound to monogamy and again, to the scarcity model of love on which monogamy is based. That doesn’t mean it’s never a problem for polyamorous partners, just that our perspective on it is different - it’s not inevitable, and it’s not insurmountable.

Jealousy is something tightly bound to human beings! How many people do you know who have rarely been jealous? Doesn’t doubt ever enter your mind when your husband enjoys being with a lover more than you?

Are frequent discussions about the physical, psychological and sexual suitability of potential lovers necessarily healthy?

Probably more so than discussing the same things in couples’ therapy…

Therapy is for those who have serious marital problems. Polyamorists seek to solve them by finding lovers but often the real solution lies in ourselves through our defects magnified by co-existence. All couples are incompatible to some extent. The remedy lies in learning to **give and take **rather than give up and take a lover!

You assume that children’s attitudes and feelings are somehow independent of the environment in which they are raised… Our culture instils the idea that step-parents are necessarily outsiders (the ‘wicked stepmother’ scenario is a well-established literary trope) and the implication is always - however subtle - that it’s not really worth investing emotionally (and financially) in children who are not biologically ‘yours’. It’s tacitly assumed that a step-parent will automatically feel less affection for the stepchildren.

I know several couples with step-children who with the best will in the world find it impossible never to leave them feeling unwanted. The children of polyamorists must have a more complicated and confusing life, especially if some of the adults in the community share more than one lover.

As far as I’m aware, triads and quartets are the most common, but even in these, there is variation in the range and degree of physical intimacy.

If they are musically inclined they can play in yet another way - provided they all have the same tastes.

Doesn’t that cause dissension when the partner is deeply attached?

That assumes the deep attachment is formed before the other partner(s) have had a chance to get acquainted with the newcomer. That implies, to me, a certain duplicity.

Do “old” friends never become lovers?

This implies that the children are taught to be polyamorists. Don’t you ever have any doubts about encouraging them in a search for sexual variety?

You keep claiming that it’s just a search for sexual variety.

It must be a major factor given that many married women have a defective sex life. It is unrealistic to rule out the intense pleasure and satisfaction of coitus. The drawback is that it is often followed by an anticlimax of tristitia and a sense of futility.
The question remains about the wisdom of encouraging children to search for sexual variety.

Children of polyamorous parents might, heaven forbid, learn to be more tolerant than they might otherwise have been. It’s not as if, in pursuing polyamorous relationships themselves as adults, they will be deviating from any natural or inborn programming. Monogamy is a cultural construct, not an innate characteristic of humans.

So is morality to a large extent. Excessive tolerance is foolish and immoral. Without guidelines children can easily go off the rails if they are given the impression before they become mature that sexual activity is a matter of personal choice. During adolescence this is a greater risk than for those who are taught the virtue of chastity. They are more likely to become promiscuous, diseased or disadvantaged by an unwanted pregnancy or abortion.

 

[Sair]

Sair:
Do you think that the human toll from single-parenting is good? Do you think the human toll of parent-less children is good? Do you think the venereal disease problem in some parts of the world is good? Do you think there are good natural reasons why many of the higher animals, besides mankind, take one mate for life? Do you think there would come a problem if more and more people who were related as brothers and sisters bore children together?

I get the distinct impression that you haven’t read much of the thread up to this point. You seem to be equating polyamory with casual sex. It is largely the combination of sexual irresponsibility coupled with the demand to choose only one life partner that leads to things like widespread venereal disease and single parenthood. The numbers of animals who mate for life are quite a lot fewer than might be supposed. At most, pair-bonds hold until the young leave the nest, so to speak, and then new mates may be sought. Our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are very far from being monogamous.

As a person who for a while was involved in animal breeding (e.g., dogs, rats, mice, birds) I have witnessed the effects of in-breeding. Have you?

Not personally, although I’ve heard that, for example, around a third of dalmatian pups are born deaf, due in part to lack of genetic diversity. Also, perusal of European history allows some acquaintance with the unfortunate fate of, amongst others, the Habsburg dynasty, which certainly had its share of deformed idiots thanks to inbreeding. Interestingly, most examples of human inbreeding have taken place in monogamous cultures. Our promiscuous primate cousins in the wild seem to manage to avoid it, despite sharing many amorous encounters both within and between troupes.

That is your perspective, your point of view. As a theory, or hypothesis, it must remain an eternal one.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that it’s my opinion that sex is a distraction from spiritual fulfilment? Because it isn’t. Are you saying that the hypothesis Tonyrey presented - that sex isn’t a distraction when it’s with one partner and one only, but it is when shared with more than one partner - holds eternally despite any evidence to the contrary?

Which doesn’t make much sense?

The abovementioned hypothesis regarding sex and spirituality.

Does it work for most? Or, for half? Or, for relatively none?

Are you familiar with the present rate of divorce in Western society? Clearly monogamy isn’t working for at least half the people who attempt it.

Thus the aggrieved spouse gets to just grieve?

To which aggrieved spouse are you referring? The one who is repressing part of themselves?

Your hypothesis then is that each person in every pairing of people is OK with infidelity?

Certainly not. Polyamory is something pursued by people who realise they are capable of and comfortable with having intimate relationships with more than one lover. Not everyone wants that, or would feel comfortable with it. The argument is against the belief that monogamy is the One True Way and that everyone should try to fit themselves into this mould.

Yeah. I think you should try that theory out on a wife or husband that’s not of like mind, for whatever reasons.

Clearly, polyamory only works if all involved are like-minded in that respect. It’s not something you can just impose on someone who isn’t willing to pursue it.

It’s just anecdotal on my part but from my experience there always, or for the most part, was more stress where there was a partner, in the relationship, that did not treat that relationship as unique. And I mean “unique” in every way.

A relationship between any two individuals is unique, regardless of how you express that relationship. You might as well say that your relationship with every one of your friends is interchangeable, or that your relationships with all of your children are interchangeable. If you share meaningful conversation with more than one person, does that make your relationship with any of these individuals non-unique? Why should sex have that effect?

And this controls the relationships of the parents, how?

Is that what you think is the function of parenthood? A check upon the behaviour of adults? What keeps polyamorous relationships together, ideally, are the bonds of friendship, family, shared life experience, shared goals - the same things that, ideally, keep monogamous couples together.

Yes. And, if the wife remains unhappy and inharmonious well simply whip her into shape. Literally.

Like what used to happen in ‘traditional’ marriages a couple of hundred years ago, where it was perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife, as long as it wasn’t with a stick thicker than his thumb. Why do you assume, first of all, that the wife has no say in pursuing a polyamorous relationship, and that it’s only the husband who would want to have more than one lover?

 

[levinas12]

Sair,

I’m curious about the sociology of your polyamorous arrangement. I apologize if you have previously answered some of the questions earlier in the thread (but believe me when I say that I have tried to follow the postings as best I can)

• How long has this arrangement been going on? Has there been much turnover in partners? I’m not implying casual sex here. There’s seems to be some stability in your arrangement.
• How are sick partners cared for? What about caring for the parents of partners, or other members of the partners’ extended family (brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles)? Doesn’t this somewhat complicated?
• Are the belief systems of the partners more or less homogeneous? Do ideological conflicts arise? Who decides the belief system in which the children are raised?
• I’m assuming that is no legal status accorded to the polyamorous relationships. You’ve indicated that there is one partner to whom you are legally married. Are there legal issues that may arise with other partners?
• Are partners screened for previous sex offenses against adults or children? For STDs?
• Are partners generally in the same age cohort (young, middle-aged, senior)?

Of course, many of the same questions are asked by people contemplating monogamous relationships. But having multiple partners might make it more complicated. For a slightly ridiculous analogy, it’s like calculating the orbits of more than two bodies that are gravitationally attracted to one another.

 

[levinas12]

Sair,

I’m curious about the sociology of your polyamorous arrangement. I apologize if you have previously answered some of the questions in the thread (but believe me when I say that I have tried to follow the postings as best I can)

• How long has this arrangement been going on? Has there been much turnover in partners? I’m not implying casual sex here. There’s seems to be some stability in your arrangement.
• How are sick partners cared for? What about caring for the parents of partners, or other members of the partners’ extended family (brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles)? Doesn’t this get somewhat complicated?
• Are the belief systems of the partners more or less homogeneous? Do ideological conflicts arise? Who decides the belief system in which the children are raised?
• I’m assuming that is no legal status accorded to the polyamorous relationships. You’ve indicated that there is one partner to whom you are legally married. Are there legal issues that may arise with other partners?
• Are partners screened for previous sex offenses against adults or children? For STDs?
• Are partners generally in the same age cohort (young, middle-aged, senior)?

Of course, many of the same questions are asked by people contemplating monogamous relationships. But having multiple partners might make it more complicated. For a slightly ridiculous analogy, it’s like calculating the orbits of more than two bodies that are gravitationally attracted to one another.

Just a followup. Suppose that your partners have partners in other polyamorous arrangements … and those partners have partners, etc. … this would not be casual or egregiously promiscuous … you could be faithful to just two partners … and they, faithful to two more, etc. … but some of my questions in my previous posting, e.g., STDs, might become more acute as the connections spiral out of control … it would be like a polypeptide chain, and you would be embedded in the middle of it …

 

[levinas12]

… but some of my questions in my previous posting, e.g., STDs, might become more acute as the connections spiral out of control …

I know there are ways to prevent STDs and vaccines (HPV) … but these are not perfect … and apparently fail in real life situations more frequently than governments are willing to admit … look at the current epidemic … and there are other problems (e.g., herpes) that are not so easily circumvented …

 

[levinas12]

… but some of my questions in my previous posting, e.g., STDs, might become more acute as the connections spiral out of control …

I need to amend this. I know there are ways to prevent STDs. Although none too perfect, given the current epidemic.

But there is a larger issue involved. The need to control. To establish boundaries or barriers.

And STD prevention itself is a metaphor for the functionalization/segmentation/control of relationships.

 

[levinas12]

Sair,

I’m curious about the sociology of your polyamorous arrangement. I apologize if you have previously answered some of the questions earlier in the thread (but believe me when I say that I have tried to follow the postings as best I can)

• How long has this arrangement been going on? Has there been much turnover in partners? I’m not implying casual sex here. There’s seems to be some stability in your arrangement.
• How are sick partners cared for? What about caring for the parents of partners, or other members of the partners’ extended family (brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles)? Doesn’t this get somewhat complicated?
• Are the belief systems of the partners more or less homogeneous? Do ideological conflicts arise? Who decides the belief system in which the children are raised?
• I’m assuming that is no legal status accorded to the polyamorous relationships. You’ve indicated that there is one partner to whom you are legally married. Are there legal issues that may arise with other partners?
• Are partners screened for previous sex offenses against adults or children? For STDs?
• Are partners generally in the same age cohort (young, middle-aged, senior)?

Of course, many of the same questions are asked by people contemplating monogamous relationships.

To clarify, I was thinking of dating websites when I put in the bolded sentence. Obviously, some of the questions would not directly apply to monogamous relationships, e.g., turnover of partners, legal issues involving additional partners. But maybe there are related questions that arise in monogamous contexts, e.g., number of times someone has been married.

And there are more questions for the polyamorous arrangement:

• who takes care of the sick children when the husband or wife are off with their respective lovers? This is assuming that all of the partners do not live in the same household. But, if they do, do additional partners have a medical power of attorney in case the kids get sick when both parents are absent?
• do the children in the polyamorous family have different parents (other than the legally married husband and wife)? How is parental authority exercised where there is mixed parentage?
• does polyamory constrain the number of children the women have? This is assuming that sex with the additional partners is not procreative. It would seem that the extra relationships place limits on childbearing and childcare.

 

[levinas12]

Sair,

No need to answer my questions. They were probably too intrusive anyway. I’ve been researching polyamory and it’s a real eye-opener. You may be right. Polyamory may be the next sexual revolution coming up over the horizon. But God help us.

Just look at the postings on “poly” websites. A constant refrain: the need to establish boundaries, to structure situations, to practice safe sex … basically, a new technology of human relationships. I could not help but think that the gemeinshaft was artificial, or better, was really gesellshaft in disguise.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

What is the philosophy behind this? I cannot see any philosophical way of connecting these two. I obviously do think that there is a connection. But I don’t know what to make of it. This of course relates to why sex outside of marriage is wrong, why hook ups are wrong. etc.

Any papers on this topic or threads or new thoughts?

Love is the candy… sex is the wrapper…it’s like eating the wrapper and throwing away the candy. (Merton)

When you seek the Love for the sake of loving - foregoing what God wills to be enjoyed by a man and a woman in marriage, God gives you the fullness of the Love.

Those who seek [love] in pursuit of the sex…are eating the rind and throwing away the fruit.

 

[levinas12]

I have to confess that my long list of questions in previous postings was motivated by a desire to show the unworkability of polyamory.

I think it’s somewhat ironic that an experiment like polyamory, which is framed in terms of liberation, eventually involves more controls, more boundaries, more segmentation than traditional marriage.

The bottomline is that polyamory fractures the bond between husband and wife, and the bond between parents and children.

 

[tonyrey]

Love is the candy… sex is the wrapper…it’s like eating the wrapper and throwing away the candy. (Merton)

When you seek the Love for the sake of loving - foregoing what God wills to be enjoyed by a man and a woman in marriage, God gives you the fullness of the Love.

Those who seek [love] in pursuit of the sex…are eating the rind and throwing away the fruit.

Thomas Merton was a mystic and a fine writer who knew what he was talking about from his experience as a young man when he rejected religion. His hard life as a Trappist monk enabled him to see life in its true perspective:

“Seek first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be given to you.”

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”

 

[tonyrey]

It is a concept of purity which does not entail the sharing of one’s body with several persons. Virginity is scorned today but it reveals a strength of character lacking in those who yield to their sexual urges.

.
You are obviously unaware of the impact of men and women like Thomas Merton on modern society, let alone the mystics from every religion throughout history.

Really and truly, does sharing your thoughts with more than one person make your mind impure?

Yes, if they concern the most intimate details of your sexual life with your husband or wife.

I have yet to see any adequate explanation for why sex is considered the only expression of intimacy that must be kept exclusively for one person - that is, any explanation that doesn’t ultimately devolve into considerations of private possession, paternity certainty and property inheritance.

It is not the only expression of intimacy! Do you reveal **every **detail of your private life and your family’s private life to your lovers?

If I thought there were no plausible reasons why people choose to be polyamorists I wouldn’t waste time discussing it. If you believe it is the best solution why condemn you?
Do you think there are plausible reasons, or do you actually think it’s just an excuse for being sexually indiscriminate?

No matter how many times I’ve pointed out that it’s not a matter of mere sexual variety, but relationship variety that, when successful, benefits all involved, you keep coming back to the notion that it’s all about the sex.

It is not** all** about physical sex but you believe physical sex with your closest friends is essential if you are to be happy and fulfilled. For you the physical element is a sine que non because we are animals and no more than animals. Polyamory is a logical consequence of physicalism.

I believe it is only in the quest for truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and unselfish love that we can find real peace, joy and fulfilment.

I think you’ll find that these ideals are shared by many folks who happen to be polyamorous.

They share them but whether they find the same degree of peace, joy and fulfilment as faithful partners is not self-evident.
BTW They don’t happen to be but choose to be polyamorous unless you believe they have no choice in the matter! That is another logical consequence of physicalism.

When we are spiritually united with others physical sex is not only unnecessary but a distraction - unless it is with the one person to whom we commit ourselves for life.

Polyamorists commit themselves to more than one person. I don’t see any reason to expect that spiritual unity is untainted with a single sex partner, but tainted for any additional partner… Great for the people who feel comfortable with it and have made a success of it - but too bad for the people who find that they are strongly attracted to someone in addition to their spouse. I would suggest, too, that sex is only a distraction (post-puberty, at least) when it is repressed and denied, and when it is considered - in practice, if not in theory - to be the most important aspect of an intimate relationship. Any way you style it, claiming that you can have a spiritual relationship with anyone and everyone you like, but a sexual relationship with only one, regardless of how many people you love, is putting sex in a more exalted position than any other expression of intimacy.

If physical sex is not a very important aspect of a deep friendship why is it so essential? Do you regard it a necessity or a luxury?

In a community of lovers adults and children are all mixed up - metaphorically as well as literally!

Why? Children look to the adults for love and guidance, because they’re part of the family. Why does it matter if all the adults have had sex with each other?

It makes them think sex is a game that can be shared with any close friend.

Does that make them less than parental figures to the children?

Yes. The parents are less distinguishable by the mere fact that they share their private parts with others!

The supposed equality is an unattainable ideal because we all have our strong and weak points. There are bound to be favourites and the larger the community the greater the risk of neglect and unhappiness. The most difficult thing to achieve in life is harmony. That is why time is the only real test of polyamory. The example of Victoria Woodhull and others suggests it will be eventually abandoned…

Your argument here could be as valid for limiting the number of children you have as for confining your sexual intimacy to one person and one only.

Children should be limited to those who you can love adequately. Love for your own flesh and blood cannot be reasonably be compared to love for a rival to their father.

Victoria Woodhull was not a polyamorist - she just called out the rest of her society for the double-standard that trapped women in often loveless marriages whilst their husbands’ mistresses and other dalliances were tacitly tolerated.

She eventually realised the emptiness and futility of free love.

Here we are some hundred or so years after her campaign, and not only have many of the freedoms she advocated become standard practice in Western nations, but polyamory is gaining a groundswell of support. I hardly think this suggests that we’ll be throwing in the towel any time soon.

Polyamory is still practised by a very small minority and even goes against the secular concept of romantic love as a relationship between one man and one woman.

 

[levinas12]

.
Love for your own flesh and blood cannot be reasonably be compared to love for a rival to their father.

Good point. You’re invoking a deep philosophical tradition here. There are natural necessities. And they are closely associated with the body. I am not talking just about bathroom activities but a significant part of human life which is private, domestic, shielded from view by the walls of a house. Are you familiar with Ferdinand Tonnies and his distinction between gemeinshaft and gesellshaft? What Sair is trying to do is to apply gesellshaft to gemeinshaft, to engineer our most basic and private life to fit subjective individual goals. But human nature is not infinitely malleable. In spite of what some anthropologists say. But this assumption of malleability almost defines modernity in the bad sense of the word. Hobbes began the process with the Leviathan.

We are not Robinson Crusoe, thrown up on a beach by a hostile or indifferent nature. Not everything is subject to construction.

 

[tonyrey]

Good point. You’re invoking a deep philosophical tradition here. There are natural necessities. And they are closely associated with the body. I am not talking just about bathroom activities but a significant part of human life which is private, domestic, shielded from view by the walls of a house. Are you familiar with Ferdinand Tonnies and his distinction between gemeinshaft and gesellshaft? What Sair is trying to do is to apply gesellshaft to gemeinshaft, to engineer our most basic and private life to fit subjective individual goals. But human nature is not infinitely malleable. In spite of what some anthropologists say. But this assumption of malleability almost defines modernity in the bad sense of the word. Hobbes began the process with the Leviathan.

We are not Robinson Crusoe, thrown up on a beach by a hostile or indifferent nature. Not everything is subject to construction.

Precisely! Many people don’t realise we ignore moral laws at our peril. They aren’t arbitrary man-made rules but truths about personal development. Egoists are doomed to be dissatisfied because they want to have everything their own way. We can be content only if we are not slaves to our desires but liberated from them by our love for others. Lust is one of the greatest causes of conflict, suffering, hatred, jealousy, murder and suicide…

 

[Sair]

Good point. You’re invoking a deep philosophical tradition here. There are natural necessities. And they are closely associated with the body. I am not talking just about bathroom activities but a significant part of human life which is private, domestic, shielded from view by the walls of a house. Are you familiar with Ferdinand Tonnies and his distinction between gemeinshaft and gesellshaft? What Sair is trying to do is to apply gesellshaft to gemeinshaft, to engineer our most basic and private life to fit subjective individual goals. But human nature is not infinitely malleable. In spite of what some anthropologists say. But this assumption of malleability almost defines modernity in the bad sense of the word. Hobbes began the process with the Leviathan.

We are not Robinson Crusoe, thrown up on a beach by a hostile or indifferent nature. Not everything is subject to construction.

You are confusing natural necessities to some extent with cultural adaptations. Foraging societies, even now, don’t have the same notions of privacy as modern settled societies, nor do they have the same concept of personal property - resources are there for the sharing. Monogamous marriage is not the essential feature of human nature that is being portrayed here - it is a cultural norm. It is, to use your terminology, itself a form of social engineering, a way of keeping human sexuality contained and managed by fulfilling our social, sexual and emotional needs just enough. It is by no means the only way to manage it. I would suggest it is preferable to pursue an alternative to monogamy than to continually try to cram onesself into a monogamous lifestyle against one’s inclinations.

 

[tonyrey]

I would suggest it is preferable to pursue an alternative to monogamy than to continually try to cram oneself into a monogamous lifestyle against one’s inclinations.

The question is whether we should pander to our inclinations if there are good reasons not to…

 

[Sair]

The question is whether we should pander to our inclinations if there are good reasons not to…

That depends upon there actually being good reasons not to, which have not been demonstrated beyond statements of prejudice and assumption…

 

[levinas12]

You are confusing natural necessities to some extent with cultural adaptations. Foraging societies, even now, don’t have the same notions of privacy as modern settled societies, nor do they have the same concept of personal property - resources are there for the sharing. Monogamous marriage is not the essential feature of human nature that is being portrayed here - it is a cultural norm. It is, to use your terminology, itself a form of social engineering, a way of keeping human sexuality contained and managed by fulfilling our social, sexual and emotional needs just enough. It is by no means the only way to manage it. I would suggest it is preferable to pursue an alternative to monogamy than to continually try to cram onesself into a monogamous lifestyle against one’s inclinations.

Well, the notion of cultural universals is a delicious topic. And, although it may stem from ancient Greek philosophy, the contrast between what is universal and what can vary really got going in modern philosophy and subsequently in 20th century anthropology (e.g., structuralism).

But what is peculiarly modern is the view that individuals can deliberately formulate their own social worlds. This is the gesellshaft part.

Monogamy, and non-monogamy, in the past, were not the result of individual choice.

Are there natural constraints on social arrangements? Is there a human nature? Is there a dimension outside of our technological control?

These questions, ironically enough, came up over the horizon with the birth of modern capitalism. Nature became a “resource”, something to be deliberately manipulated without constraint. Everything was “rationalized”; the world was disenchanted (Weber) - no sacred taboo to limit human behavior - because the gods had fled.

Your social experiment has been made possible by this major shift. In a way, you are one of the heirs of capitalism.

Just a footnote. Even in non-monogamous societies, there were (and are) elaborate unconscious social controls (e.g., kinship systems) that circumscribe sexual activties. Now, one might say that this is the involuntary, non-technological dimension at work. And you know what happens when you try to fool “Mother Nature”.

 

[tonyrey]

*The question is whether we should pander to our inclinations if there are good reasons not to… *

You need to justify your view that they are statements of prejudice and assumption.

In the meantime when do you think we should resist our inclinations and for what reasons? If there are good reasons why polyamory harms you and others, particularly children, would you renounce it even though you are convinced it is essential for your own well-being and happiness?