20 thoughts on “Interesting article on non-monogamy.

  1. terralthra

    The author seems to be confused. He or she goes on at length at the beginning to attempt to ‘prove’ (rather, he or she asserts vigorously, without citing any real evidence) that men and women are equally biased for or against monogamy or nonmonogamy. Later in the piece, though, he or she states numerous times that this or that plays into men’s fantasies but not women’s, this or that nonmonogamous thing is more desirable to men, this or that thing is more or less favorable to men or women, etc.

    If one plots the trends of things that are more favorable to men in the list of events and activities mentioned and compare it to the list of things that are more favorable or desirable or what-have-you to women, a clear trend emerges: the activities ‘desirable to men’ involve more frequent, casual, non-monogamous sex.

    Um, yeah.

    Interestingly,the next strongest trend in the author’s description and categorization of events is that anywhere men are allowed to be active sexual aggressors is unfavorable to women.

    Reply
    1. capnkjb

      I think the first bit, about the bias, is to show that said bias is rooted in the culture, and the “this is more favorable” bit assumes that you’ve agreed with the idea that it’s favorable in the context of what the culture has impressed upon people. At least, that’s how I read it.

      Reply
      1. cos

        She is arguing that these ideas are prevalent in the culture which means that they are internalized by people who are part of that culture. In other words, that many (most?) men and women *do* think in these stereotypical ways at least somewhat, even if there’s no objective or biological reason why they should. After all, that’s what culture is: the prevalent ways people think.

        Reply
    2. Krissy Gibbs Post author

      To me the author seemed to be going with some basic assumptions about people that aren’t very open-minded, but seem often true. I think that the author looked at some things that are assumed in our culture in a way I hadn’t considered them before. I do not think that his post is something I will accept as dogma for my life, but it was good to think about. I’m sorry you don’t like the writing style very much.

      Reply
      1. terralthra

        Nothing wrong with the writing style. The issue was the “basic assumptions” is that the underlying assumption that leads to them is, “men like sex more, men are less monogamous, etc.,” which the author attempted to disprove earlier in the article.

        Reply
        1. Krissy Gibbs Post author

          Even if neither of those assumptions are basically true, the point is that our society is set up to mostly allow non-monogamous situations in which those assumptions are served best.

          Reply
          1. capnkjb

            I am totally doing the touching-nose-and-pointing-with-the-other-hand thing right now (even though it is so gay).

  2. rbus

    “hot bi babe”

    *blink*

    something in there is redundant.

    ack!

    i just proved the author’s point.

    nah, i didn’t, just fooling around.

    ack!

    i did it again.

    ——————

    anytime i read anything
    that wraps a biological issue
    in a societal blanket
    – or vice-versa –
    a bell starts ringing in my head.

    beware of such arguments.
    for they speak of two different things
    at the same time…

    Reply
    1. Krissy Gibbs Post author

      The problem, as far as I can tell, is that monogamy/non-monogamy are both biological and societal issues simultaneously. It is pretty well documented that humans are not *really* instinctively completely monogamous. We don’t mate for life with one partner as the norm. We just don’t. But we are told over and over that we “should.” That means that biological urges are at play in a societal issue.

      is complicated much.

      Reply
      1. rbus

        but how often do we *change* society to match biology?

        it reminds me of the never-ending debates on
        free will and determinism.

        in the end, a person -does- what they -do-.

        Reply
        1. Krissy Gibbs Post author

          Well, there is a Church of England because Henry 8th wanted to be able to get divorced when he wanted to in order to follow his wandering impulses. That seems like a big change to me.

          Some oh-my-gosh percentage of divorces in this country are linked to adultery and yet people cannot be punished for it *anymore*. Once upon a time adultery was severely punished.

          Looks like change to me. 🙂

          Reply
          1. rbus

            henry also claimed he wanted a son, didn’t he?

            though your point is will taken.

            i suppose, there’s war in arab-ee
            since gwb wanted a bigger dick.

            i was thinking more along the line of smaller folk.

            and adultery is still severely punished.
            i would certainly lose at least half of all i own.

            may be better to be stoned to death.

          2. Krissy Gibbs Post author

            The thing is: you lose half you own if you divorce for *any* reason. Adultery doesn’t make the consequences more severe.

          3. rbus

            oh…
            not in *this* state, you don’t automatically lose half.

            the sources i find suggest that adultery
            causes greater monetary advantage
            for the one “wronged”
            – except if it’s stepping out with the same sex which,
            in some states “doesn’t count” as adultery.

            how interesting…

  3. terpsichoros

    The article was interesting, though the underlying assumption that our personal interactions ought to serve a particular political agenda gets tedious after a while.

    To say that “evolutionary psychologists” have been pushing the idea that women are naturally monogamous is a rather glaring error on his part. Evopsych has found (which was already known) that women, in general, are more careful in their choice of sex partners, but that women are not significantly more monogamous than men. In fact, his ignorance (or denial) of that idea leaves a gaping hole in his analysis. For example, when it comes to sex parties, the organizer needs to attract relatively equal numbers of men looking for casual sex and for women looking for casual sex. Given the relative scarcity of women who are looking for casual sex (at any given moment), that means it must be overall, somewhat more friendly towards women looking for casual sex.

    Some of his other points are distorted by the same hammering of everyone into the same analytical boxes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.