Monogamy

[FrostBlaze]

I'm with monogamy, people can do whatever they want, but this is what i want.

I never trully have seen poly-amorous/polygamy relationships work in most countries that don't practice it/teach it from birth.

 

Maybe in other countries it works, since they are RAISED that way as we are raised with monogamy, so they find it okay.

 

But in general i've never seen it work around here. Someone in the couple always feels jealous about showing the other partner more affection or whatnot, generally not happy and split up.

 

About the birds

Something stupid just came to mind, with this whole "birds" being monagamous compared to other species.

 

Kinda noticed that species that live in small groups tend to have 1 alpha who does all the females, it's kinda basic survival i suppose.

But species that live in large numbers don't apply the same rule, they get partners for everybody(hint)(birds, fisht, reptiles)...just a thought, but nah.

 

Also about primates, look up gibbons, they are monagamous xD, unlike the other primates.

If we take that into consideration we can also consider this, that some men just NATURALLY pursue monogamy and others don't...if u get what i mean.

Edited March 31, 2014 by FrostBlaze

[Grumpybutfun]

I personally don't care what other people do. It doesn't affect me or my relationship with my wife. I only know that we did monogamy and marriage because it made us both deliriously happy, and kept me out of prison. I find monogamy easy because I want to be with my sweet and lovely wife. I also find marriage easy for the same reason. I believe in family and being faithful to one woman because honestly it is in tandem with my biological urges...you know the one where if another man comes sniffing around my wife, I murder him. Yeah, that one. I own it, I am traditional and a caveman.

Grunt,

Grumps

[xxoo]

I can see the benefits of both, but I definitely prefer monogamy when in love. I've been monogamous with my partner for over 20 years, and wouldn't want to sacrifice our level of intimacy and trust. I can't even see how sex with another could be worth the complications. I've got the best sex at home. Why complicate things for sex that will likely be inferior?

[FrostBlaze]

Agree.

I also wanted to just add something to my previous post.

The cheesy part.

 

We are monagamous because we LOVE and have the feels, show signs of affection and court our partners. :3

Species that feel the same and do as us are also monagamous, just check them birds.

 

Those that don't show any of these signs/implicitly love, don't practice monagamy.

TADAAA, puzzle solved xD, all about the love.

 

I was kidding when i wrote this, but i kinda have to consider it as a posibility xD hahaha.

[italianjob]

I think it's quite hard to determine what was originally natural for an animal species so complicated and structured as humans. I'm not that strong on the subject of biology so I'll leave the academics to the experts.

Just to throw in my two cents:

- poligamy would be (someone said) more efficient for reproduction if one man had multiple women; then why one woman is capable of giving sexual satisfaction to multiple men far more easily than one man could satisfy multiple women? If the natural status was 1 man N women, shouldn't it work the other way around?

- humans have a very long pregnancy and our offsprings take a very long time (several years) to develop into an autosufficient being. In a natural environment the woman would need a lot of help and protection during all that time. I think this is a good point for the "natural" status of monogamy.

- The most frequent thing in our times seems to be "serial monogamy" a series of LTRs, but I'd point out that humans are the only species that was able to increase very significantly their original lifespan. Our ancestors lived much shorter lives so it's possible that they didn't even need to go serial.

- going from the natural to the social aspect, our societies are mostly based on families. Family members help each other, thus relieving a lot of economic and social pressure from the wider community. If the blood ties were somehow diluted this probably wouldn't happen.

[xxoo]

Serious question for the non-monogamy crowd--When you are in a relationship, how do you have time to fit in other people?

 

At the end of a long day, I just want to be with my husband!

[rumbleseat]

I will preface by saying that I have a BS in zoology with an emphasis in evolution, so my points are not made from some out-of-left-field perspective.

 

Monogamy, on the whole, is in no way, shape or form more practical than polygamy. That's why it's practically unheard of in the animal world. Fine, if you want to cite the handful of outliers out of probably hundreds of thousands of species spread out through every phyla, fine. Those are outliers, and even within those few species, tons of evidence exists that shows that even monogamous species 'cheat' frequently.

 

In most cases, monogamy is just not a great reproductive strategy. If we want to look just in mammals, the overwhelmingly most common reproductive strategy is one male and multiple females. The vast, vast majority of mammals reproduce this way. The reasoning is pretty simple. One male can fertilize multiple females, but one female cannot be fertilized by multiple males. Sure, in subsequent matings, a different male can fertilize the same female (take my aunt, for example), but it's just not reproductively advantageous to do so.

 

Female mammals in particular put an emphasis on mating with the male that gives their offspring the best chance at survival in that environment at that time. Typically, there will be a wide spectrum of males, but the top few are the ones who reproduce with the vast majority of the females (sound familiar). Again, it's economical in terms of survivability of the species, which is always the ultimate end goal. One male with outstanding genetic material is more sought after by females, and that one male will reproduce with much greater frequency because that one male can fertilize multiple females in each breeding event. Simple reproductive economics. Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable.

 

Seals do it, whales do it, wolves do it, bears do it, mice do it, lions do it, virtually all primates do it, deer do it, horses do it, elephants do it, capybaras do it, and many human societies do it...and on and on.

 

Monogamy, where it does exist, seems to occur most in birds. I don't know why, but I would guess it has a lot to do with the overall high degree of mobility that birds have. In some wide ranging birds, particularly migratory species, probably best to hook up with one to guarantee that you will always have a mate on hand than to risk something goofy happening, like you get lost on your way to Canada from Mexico.

 

Our version of monogamy is goofy, stemming from the idea of marriage. But marriage is an idea that is extremely outdated. Marriage was constructed ages ago as essentially a way to protect property and assets. Two families could get together and pool their resources, and have greater protection of those resources by hooking a boy and a girl up.

 

This discussion can go on forever. That's a general overview of the basics of reproduction. Strategies are favored for based on economics. In 'k' strategists like mammals (low fecundity, high parental investment), it's far more economical to just have one male popping numerous females. In 'k' strategists, there are typically more females in a population than males for this reason. In 'r' strategists, where parental investment is low, it's ok to just spill a bunch of eggs and sperm out into the environment and hope for the best.

 

Naturally, there are exceptions. Many fish have hierarchical breeding communities where there is one female and numerous males, although those species tend to be hermaphroditic.

 

Some pints about your post.

 

Number one, there are many disadvantages to having relationships of a sexual nature with more than one mate at a time, as this exposes an organism to a myriad of viral and bacterial diseases that are spread only through close, personal contact. From aids to Ebola to syphalis and even some forms of viral induced cancers, having multiple partners encourages the spread of diseases that can not only cause sickness and death, but be passed to ones offspring and can even make someone infertile. How any of those are beneficial for the passing of one's genes is beyond me.

 

Number two, it would encourage you to do I some further research into m. For example, at one time in Britain, up until the End of the middle ages, a couple could get m simply by agreeing to do so. No church needed to be involved, as it was not considered a sacrament. All it took was a man and a woman agreeing with each other to get married, saying a simple vow between them, and they were married. the church made it a sacrament because they wanted to have control, not over marriage, but information for things like tithes, etc.

 

Third, there are many animal species that are monogamous, many if them the longest lived and more intelligent, especially with birds. Albatrosses, parrots, eagles, etc. are all monogamous, and the individuals that are not Are considered the outliers ( as with female electus parrots. The females may have more than one mate, but hide the fact so they will be cared for by more than one male. If the males find out, they often stop caring for the female).

 

Monogamy also makes sense in that it would tend to discourage inbreeding and the prevalence of genetic errors. If a male is fertilizing many females in a group, there is a grafter chance his offspring will end up mating with reach other.

 

Fourth, monogamy may not be for everyone. For some, it isn't what they are looking for, for others, it is. In simple terms this means that if one doesn't want to be with just one person, fine. Be honest about it, and give them the freedom to be with others should they choose to do so.

 

Myself, I've been monogamous with one person for the past 20 years, and have no interest in anyone else. Works for me, maybe not you, which is okay.

Edited April 1, 2014 by rumbleseat

[gaius]

I just like that some women are running around eating their placenta because they're so obsessed with what goes on in the animal world.

 

If you want to try and sleep with a lot of women then try and sleep with a lot of women. Don't try and get all scientific about it though. You're not a goat.

[tbf]

If people are pulling out the no benefits for females mating with multiple males, that's untrue. The more males that females mate with, the greater likelihood of pregnancy. There's also the possibility that paternal ambiguity can ensure that multiple males provide and protect.

 

But I'm no animal so I choose not to copulate on the front lawn, on public transport or in my parent's living room. I also choose monogamy and can hold my pee until there's a toilet, wiping with manufactured toilet paper.

 

People should live their lives as they wish, within the confines of the existing social contract of law. Why people feel the need to tell others that they should or shouldn't be monogamous, is weird.

[2.50 a gallon]

RS

 

 

Comparing animals to humans is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

What you say is true in the animal world. However we have evolved beyond that.

 

 

One of the key steps in our evolution is quite simply love. Some say it was just as important as walking upright and the development of the opposable thumb.

 

 

In the animal kingdom, other than pack animals, most species are able to successfully reproduce, and rear their young to adulthood, with just a single parent. And note, in most cases in less than a year or two. And then momma bear, or moose drives off junior in order to reproduce once again. While our young take much longer to reach adulthood

 

 

We, after coming down from out of the trees, were not the fastest, meanest or strongest. All we had was our smarts. We needed to be able to work together in order to survive. Not only in defense, but also being able to bring down large game. The more hunters that can encircle the game to shut off avenues of escape the more likely the success of the hunt. And when it comes to very large game, it takes more than a single spear thrust to bring down a buffalo or an elephant.

 

 

We mate face to face. Also, just as important, while animals only come in season once a year, and some once every couple of years, we humans can have sex all year round. Which brings in monogamy

 

 

The females need the males to help them raise their young to adulthood. A single mother alone, had almost zero chance.

 

 

And as for the alpha male taking all of the females, that was not going to work either, as he needed the help of the other males for protection and bringing down larger game. And lest we forget the alpha male has to go to sleep some time. We only need one spear to kill another human, or a large rock.

Edited April 1, 2014 by 2.50 a gallon

[man_in_the_box]

Well my cat got punched when he tried to mount another cats 'girlfriend'.

[RonaldS]

Some pints about your post.

 

Number one, there are many disadvantages to having relationships of a sexual nature with more than one mate at a time, as this exposes an organism to a myriad of viral and bacterial diseases that are spread only through close, personal contact. From aids to Ebola to syphalis and even some forms of viral induced cancers, having multiple partners encourages the spread of diseases that can not only cause sickness and death, but be passed to ones offspring and can even make someone infertile. How any of those are beneficial for the passing of one's genes is beyond me.

 

Number two, it would encourage you to do I some further research into m. For example, at one time in Britain, up until the End of the middle ages, a couple could get m simply by agreeing to do so. No church needed to be involved, as it was not considered a sacrament. All it took was a man and a woman agreeing with each other to get married, saying a simple vow between them, and they were married. the church made it a sacrament because they wanted to have control, not over marriage, but information for things like tithes, etc.

 

Third, there are many animal species that are monogamous, many if them the longest lived and more intelligent, especially with birds. Albatrosses, parrots, eagles, etc. are all monogamous, and the individuals that are not Are considered the outliers ( as with female electus parrots. The females may have more than one mate, but hide the fact so they will be cared for by more than one male. If the males find out, they often stop caring for the female).

 

Monogamy also makes sense in that it would tend to discourage inbreeding and the prevalence of genetic errors. If a male is fertilizing many females in a group, there is a grafter chance his offspring will end up mating with reach other.

 

Fourth, monogamy may not be for everyone. For some, it isn't what they are looking for, for others, it is. In simple terms this means that if one doesn't want to be with just one person, fine. Be honest about it, and give them the freedom to be with others should they choose to do so.

 

Myself, I've been monogamous with one person for the past 20 years, and have no interest in anyone else. Works for me, maybe not you, which is okay.

 

You are reaching dramatically with some of your points.

 

Animals are not considering stds, etc when reproducing. Hell, half the time, people don't even think about it. Animals reproducing are 'thinking' about one thing....putting as much of their genetic material as possible into the population.

 

To your point about monogamy reducing the chances of inbreeding events....no. When a male and female reproduce, offspring receive 50% of their DNA from each parent. If one male and one female reproduce exclusively, there is a lot less genetic variation in their offspring than a male reproducing with multiple females with different genotypes. Granted, there will be far fewer offspring in the population that share the males genotypic information, in terms of just numbers and probabilities. But that's meaningless. Genetic issues arising from inbreeding typically occur when multiple generations are being created through a small genotype...ie, male and female reproduce, their offspring reproduce, their offspring reproduce, their offspring reproduce.

 

The chances that one male fertilizing multiple females will result in any sort of inbreeding issues is effectively 0. Want to know how you can tell? Because about 99.5% of all animal species are not monogamous. It's a strategy that works. When a male fertilizes a female, there's already a low chance that he will pass on the same genetic info each time anyway. The genome for most animals is in the BILLIONS. Inbreeding with billions of possible base-pair combos is just not going to happen.

 

You cite a few organisms that tend to be monogamous. As I stated previously, most of the literal handful out of hundreds of thousands of organisms in the kingdom Animalia are 'monogamous' are birds. W/o looking into why, I would guess that it's a function of them being highly mobile and it being a way to ensure that there is always a mate on hand. And there is evidence of cheating in all of the species you list.

 

So, let's just say 100 species are monogamous. Out of hundreds of thousands. Doesn't really back up the notion that monogamy is the most advantageous reproductive strategy. If it were, more than 0.05% (not sure the actual #) of all animals would reproduce that way.

 

It is what it is.

[RonaldS]

RS

 

 

Comparing animals to humans is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

What you say is true in the animal world. However we have evolved beyond that.

 

 

One of the key steps in our evolution is quite simply love. Some say it was just as important as walking upright and the development of the opposable thumb.

 

 

In the animal kingdom, other than pack animals, most species are able to successfully reproduce, and rear their young to adulthood, with just a single parent. And note, in most cases in less than a year or two. And then momma bear, or moose drives off junior in order to reproduce once again. While our young take much longer to reach adulthood

 

 

We, after coming down from out of the trees, were not the fastest, meanest or strongest. All we had was our smarts. We needed to be able to work together in order to survive. Not only in defense, but also being able to bring down large game. The more hunters that can encircle the game to shut off avenues of escape the more likely the success of the hunt. And when it comes to very large game, it takes more than a single spear thrust to bring down a buffalo or an elephant.

 

 

We mate face to face. Also, just as important, while animals only come in season once a year, and some once every couple of years, we humans can have sex all year round. Which brings in monogamy

 

 

The females need the males to help them raise their young to adulthood. A single mother alone, had almost zero chance.

 

 

And as for the alpha male taking all of the females, that was not going to work either, as he needed the help of the other males for protection and bringing down larger game. And lest we forget the alpha male has to go to sleep some time. We only need one spear to kill another human, or a large rock.

 

Comparing humans to animals is not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing animals to animals.

 

We need to once and for all let go of this ridiculous notion that we are somehow an entirely desperate entity from the rest of the animal kingdom. We're not. We're just another kind of animal. I assure you, there isn't one single basic human behavior that you don't see all over the place in the animal kingdom. Gambling, lying, cheating, laziness, compassion, teamwork, etc etc....prevalent in some way, shape or form in all species.

 

Do you know that humans are the only animal that loves? I would love to see some evidence of that. Doubt you'll find any....mainly because the idea of love is highly subjective. But animals can't verbalized 'feelings' in a way we can easily understand or identify.

 

Your point about alpha males vs other ranking males, etc. that's societal, not reproductive. We're a social animal, so naturally there are going to be other males in our family, or troop, or whatever the structure is. But those other males do not have the same reproductive 'rights' as the top male(s). They pretty much have to get what they can. And they of course get some, at some point.

 

Monogamy is rare in not only the animal kingdom, but in human populations too. Cheating seems to occur at roughly the same, if not even greater, frequency as monogamy even in those societies that embrace monogamy. And that's even under the societal and familial pressure to not cheat. People still do it...constantly.

 

The numbers do not back up monogamy AT ALL. Not even close. Ipso facto, it's a stupid, idealistic, unnatural state that again, causes far more problems than it solves.

[RonaldS]

Also, I want to clarify something:

 

I have no issue with being monogamous in a relationship. But relationships tend to be temporary. Even my marriage ended up being temporary. Therefore, relatively short-term monogamy is no biggie.

 

However, one partner FOR LIFE. Good luck. That's where the problems come in.

[rumbleseat]

Comparing humans to animals is not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing animals to animals.

 

We need to once and for all let go of this ridiculous notion that we are somehow an entirely desperate entity from the rest of the animal kingdom. We're not. We're just another kind of animal. I assure you, there isn't one single basic human behavior that you don't see all over the place in the animal kingdom. Gambling, lying, cheating, laziness, compassion, teamwork, etc etc....prevalent in some way, shape or form in all species.

 

Do you know that humans are the only animal that loves? I would love to see some evidence of that. Doubt you'll find any....mainly because the idea of love is highly subjective. But animals can't verbalized 'feelings' in a way we can easily understand or identify.

 

Your point about alpha males vs other ranking males, etc. that's societal, not reproductive. We're a social animal, so naturally there are going to be other males in our family, or troop, or whatever the structure is. But those other males do not have the same reproductive 'rights' as the top male(s). They pretty much have to get what they can. And they of course get some, at some point.

 

Monogamy is rare in not only the animal kingdom, but in human populations too. Cheating seems to occur at roughly the same, if not even greater, frequency as monogamy even in those societies that embrace monogamy. And that's even under the societal and familial pressure to not cheat. People still do it...constantly.

 

The numbers do not back up monogamy AT ALL. Not even close. Ipso facto, it's a stupid, idealistic, unnatural state that again, causes far more problems than it solves.

 

 

 

I agree that we are "just another animal", but does that mean that we have to roll around in the muck like a pig, cannibalize our young like an insect, murder our sibling so we can get all the parental care like a bird, murder the infants of another troop like a chimpanzee or roll around a ball of sh@t like a dung beetle?

 

Personally, I'd like to aspire to be a little bit better than that.

 

If you don't agree with monogamy, fine. Go and sleep with as many people as your little heart desires.Just don't procreate, as if you do, you may end up with a bunch of offspring you'll have to support, and your resources may be spread very thin, and your offspring will suffer.

 

Now that doesn't sound like a very successful reproductive strategy does it?

 

( just having some fun with you...no offense intended )

[rumbleseat]

Also, I want to clarify something:

 

I have no issue with being monogamous in a relationship. But relationships tend to be temporary. Even my marriage ended up being temporary. Therefore, relatively short-term monogamy is no biggie.

 

However, one partner FOR LIFE. Good luck. That's where the problems come in.

 

Maybe for you. Not for everyone.

 

I would ask you to consider the fact that many who cheat on their spouses while married say it has nothing to do with sex, but rather is due to emotional issues. For many, one these are addressed, their marriage continues with no further instances of cheating.

 

How does this fit into the biological rationale against monogamy?

[tbf]

Also, I want to clarify something:

 

I have no issue with being monogamous in a relationship. But relationships tend to be temporary. Even my marriage ended up being temporary. Therefore, relatively short-term monogamy is no biggie.

 

However, one partner FOR LIFE. Good luck. That's where the problems come in.

These are your issues, not everyone else's. You'll also find like-minded people agreeing with you. But this doesn't mean that it's the only relationship style for everyone. Humans are no longer walking everywhere or only eating raw food, since the discovery of the wheel and fire.

[Revolver]

No one has a problem with people who don't practice monagamy, what bothers people is the lying and cheating of those who pretend to be monagamous.

 

If a couple for example wanted to have an open relationship I don't think anyone would really care

[Cunning_Linguist]

I'm a bit confused about all these people talking about how people who don't practice monogamy try and force it on others? I would never do such a thing!! All I would ever do is challenge why you believe what you believe.

 

For those of you who stick by monogamy, just how much relationship experience do you have? How much of your life involves actively changing and growing, and finding out who you truly are? When was the last time you actually challenged yourself and what you believe?

 

I ask these questions because when I was 18 I believed in the traditional monogamous ideas of relationships. I then traveled the world for about 5 years and this really opened my eyes, and most importantly I did a lot of soul searching and learned a lot about myself. I realized that a lot of those beliefs I had weren't my own (sure we could get in to a philosophical argument that no one has their own beliefs but I digress) and that I was following someone else's made up idea of happiness. Why the hell should I follow the rules, follow the social constructs? If I had gone on this journey I don't know If I ever would have found out more about who I was.

 

You talk about being honest, but isn't it more important to first be honest with yourself?

[xxoo]

I've questioned and challenged, and have even considered non-monogamy. I've chosen monogamy because it really is what I want.

 

I have non- monogamous (married) friends, so I've "seen" it in practice. And I'm even less interested thereafter!

[MissBee]

I'm a bit confused about all these people talking about how people who don't practice monogamy try and force it on others? I would never do such a thing!! All I would ever do is challenge why you believe what you believe.

 

For those of you who stick by monogamy, just how much relationship experience do you have? How much of your life involves actively changing and growing, and finding out who you truly are? When was the last time you actually challenged yourself and what you believe?

 

I ask these questions because when I was 18 I believed in the traditional monogamous ideas of relationships. I then traveled the world for about 5 years and this really opened my eyes, and most importantly I did a lot of soul searching and learned a lot about myself. I realized that a lot of those beliefs I had weren't my own (sure we could get in to a philosophical argument that no one has their own beliefs but I digress) and that I was following someone else's made up idea of happiness. Why the hell should I follow the rules, follow the social constructs? If I had gone on this journey I don't know If I ever would have found out more about who I was.

 

You talk about being honest, but isn't it more important to first be honest with yourself?

 

A pet peeve of mine is when people try to talk about social constructs dismissively, not realizing that EVERYTHING in human societies is socially constructed and very little is "pure" and natural just arising from nature. There isn't one thing that escapes it. Human beings are social creatures who in order to be who we are need a society and societies are not amorphous things that come down from the sky in any "natural" way, but have to be negotiated, formed, constructed and we have to make rules. No one can escape it...people are on a spectrum but most people, unless they genuinely were raised by wolves outside of the language structure and socialization of what it is to be human, like the case of feral children, from birth until death, regardless of various levels of rebellion will subscribe to some form of construct. Some are more apparent than others but nevertheless the whole world is a construct...so surprise!

 

However, it seems people only care to discuss constructs in terms of marriage or breaking particular kinds of self-interested rules. I haven't seen people care that much about other socially constructed things as much as when people wanna argue about monogamy, infidelity and marriage and seek to raise them up as the social constructs par excellence, when they are no more constructed than any other human construct that we live in and through in our daily lives. Even time, which some view as natural, is constructed and ordered by watches, clocks and calendars and no one seems to care to argue about it...

 

I hear you Cunning about questioning your beliefs and why you believe them. One of my FAVORITE quotes to live by is "The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates. I truly believe that it's useless to live a life where you never think deeply or question things and much of my life, education, travels etc have also caused me to realize that many things we see as given are highly mediated and mutable and come from our own small worlds, yet it doesn't mean that because such is the case it is a fraud or not important and valuable. It seems the problem is the assumption that a construct is destructive and bad necessarily when it doesn't have to be. It's also kind of this overzealous thing you see with converts where upon their excitement of discovering a particular thing for themselves want to forcefully push it on others or make assumptions about others instead of engaging in dialogue. I think the problem here is that your question and posts seem to assume that you're the ONLY person in the world who has ever thought about monogamy, their culture, their life etc and examined it and it is clearly because others have not done so why they believe in monogamy. This is arrogant and not true. It is is possible to do all of that and still find that monogamy sits well with you...which is okay...and it becomes problematic when you paint people who still choose monogamy as being "less enlightened" in a sense based on one particular notion you have of what that means.

 

It's like religion. I cannot respect people who disparage religion. I am myself not religious, but religion, like any other human institution has its flaws, but also serves positive functions for people and I can see and respect another's choice to embrace it. Many educated people who have examined the world and have traveled are religious or some even become religious after their minds have been opened in particular ways, so it's terribly bigoted and arrogant when people act like it's clear that if you had any sense you'd not be religious or monogamous or whatever the case might be. Variety is the spice of life and its very possible that monogamy (and even religion) are enlightened choices people make...and being able to see that side of the equation would show that your mind is broad, but not being able to see that side shows where you are still being too narrow and constrictive in your views on other people and their practices.

Edited April 2, 2014 by MissBee

[FitChick]

If you are lazy, monogamy is much easier. I am lazy.

[tbf]

I'm a bit confused about all these people talking about how people who don't practice monogamy try and force it on others? I would never do such a thing!! All I would ever do is challenge why you believe what you believe.

 

For those of you who stick by monogamy, just how much relationship experience do you have? How much of your life involves actively changing and growing, and finding out who you truly are? When was the last time you actually challenged yourself and what you believe?

 

I ask these questions because when I was 18 I believed in the traditional monogamous ideas of relationships. I then traveled the world for about 5 years and this really opened my eyes, and most importantly I did a lot of soul searching and learned a lot about myself. I realized that a lot of those beliefs I had weren't my own (sure we could get in to a philosophical argument that no one has their own beliefs but I digress) and that I was following someone else's made up idea of happiness. Why the hell should I follow the rules, follow the social constructs? If I had gone on this journey I don't know If I ever would have found out more about who I was.

 

You talk about being honest, but isn't it more important to first be honest with yourself?

I'm all for critical thinking and tossing out social constructs when they're not a good fit. But that's an individual decision.

 

In your travels of eye opening, it should also have occurred to you that if social constructs are useful to people, they have the freedom to align with them. If they're not a good fit, they have the freedom to discard them. So to believe that everyone should toss out social constructs because they're social constructs, isn't a critical thinking action. It's called over-compensatory behaviour.

 

Not everyone is cut out for open or polyamorous relationships. From what I've observed of these relationship styles, they're far more headache than they're worth. Many of the people who engage in them have serious commitment phobias, use sex for validation or love drama in their lives, making their entire worlds all about sex and drama between partners.

[2.50 a gallon]

They say you learn something new every day. Human beings are actually in the animal kingdom!

[TaraMaiden]

You really didn't know....?

 

Here is how we are classified...