Naturally It's Poly

Naturally It's Poly (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Esinn -> Naturally It's Poly (7/24/2009 11:02:29 PM)
I know we have a Poly forum. But, this is intended to challenge everyone. (Edit: I believe this to be a BDSM General as we in this scene generally encounter poly more often) By the modern standard of love Poly is an extremely difficult relationship to accept and manage. Even within the scene looking at the poly forums on this board it is an obvious minority. The anti-poly movement did not start with (1) man (1) woman Adam & Eve. Many of the people in the bible embraced poly long before this story was written. I do not think it would be a stretch to suggest at least 1,000 years after the death of Christ Poly was considered acceptable. I have found no research suggesting humans are preprogramed for 'paired-relationships'. Where as birds and ants seem to come with this type of preprogramming - they both cheat; science defines this cheating as extra-pair copulation. (EPC is an important term if you wish to research) The psychological 'warfare' on the proper way to manage relationships has been rammed down our throats for a long time - it seems to me by religion.. By the evolutionary standard "single pairing" for the purpose of gene reproduction seems to violate a process which has been hardwired into out neurons for millions of years. If this is correct one can assume monogamy is not natural - rather forced. The fact is the majority of LTRs fail along with at least 1/2 of the marriages. I've read quite a few biology journals or even 1-2 articles from the Kinsey Institute(school leading human sexuality education) that theorize the reason we fail at relationships is because 1 man 1 woman violates our natural instinct A poly alpha M/F relationship speaking from a purely biological point of view seems to be what we are hardwired for; this is how we survived for millions of years as nomadic tribes. I will suggest that poly M/M or F/F might have more success than non-poly as well if one can overcome the 1,000 year old negative stigma. A tribe (house) coming together to survive on a complicated planet which often seems indifferent or simply does not care about their survival seems to suggest the choice is naturally poly - making the life of the tribe more simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001213 (Most journals can be found free if one is inclined [8\|] ) http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/MarriageandMonogamy.html http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/pdf_extract/75/2/126 (See above) Monogamy & Christianity(Interesting) - http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm#MONOGAMY%20IS%20AS%20OLD%20AS%20ADAM http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/24/6/819

NihilusZero -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/24/2009 11:52:45 PM)
The continued development of our self-reflective sentience, though, has simultaneously kept us partially biologically wired yet also reworked much of our innards neurobiologically/psychologically. We have historically been a territorial species as well, so conflicting wiring for jealousy collides head-on with poly situations. Also, with fewer individuals in a dynamic, there are fewer variables in the way of arriving at a sense of control over the relationship. I suppose we could say that the prevalence of cheating suggests that many use monogamy as a way to ensure the other will not secede from the relationship via the offer of the same fidelity in return; a quid pro quo that bolsters the sense of propriety over the relationship. Despite the fact that I think human biological and social habits still play a big part in the building it, the fact that "happiness" is now an a la carte dish we are each able to modify to our desires through our imaginations means that society-imposed stimuli become just as valid in creating the new, evolving construct of what is "naturally" human.

RCdc -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 2:18:28 AM)
I can only give observation. Birds aren't always monogamous. Bloody flirts. Ants aren't monogamous? Aren't they almost the prime example of female worship, male chastity/celibacy and subservience? And to be honest, from a historical point of view, living in a group setting - whilst being quite a good thing from an affilliation and belonging POV - it sucks from a health standpoint and increased mortality rates. the.dark.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 2:56:16 AM)
See reading this is as bad as saying we are naturally monogamous, I think the word nature is one of the most over used. What I believe needs to happen is getting to a stage where people are allowed to develop into what feels right for them, problem is our need to explain and understand. Not all cultures are monogamous, so yes it does exist but it seems that the way we model our relationships is based almost totally on the culture that they live in. Thinking back to childhood I remember being told about the prince and the princess, I can remember watching the telly with shows like 2.4 children. Thats what a family was, and yet even that was a modern construct, what 'should' be changes with economy. When Britian was more rural extended families were the norm, aunts uncles, grandads and and grans all living together, but industrialistion called for a mobile work force enter nuclear. So therefore nothing to do with biology but instead what we are told is right and normal. Though I believe that both ways have pros and cons, the Indian idea of raising children in a community seems like a pretty wonderful way to do it, but as the.darkness points out from a health point of view monogamy seems the best way to go. Therefore rather than saying which one is 'right' or 'better' or more 'natural' why can we not work towards more acceptance and increased awareness that there are options. Rather than socialisation into what we should be, I feel we should be taught what we can be.

ranja -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 2:59:46 AM)
In my observations poly is usually arranged by one very 'up for it' Dominant man who manages to 'keep' several women... some more desperate than others.... Or a Dominant Female who manages several men... any other combo of subs and Doms just gets a bit confusing i think. I do not think i would ever be happy in a situation like this as i am not a Dominant female and do not care to keep submissive men... and also i have quite a high sex drive so having to share only one male would just not do... even though the idea makes for hot wanking material, the reality would be very naff for me. I am all for being not to possessive and sharing a bit while maintaining a very normal marriage between two people... now if only i could convince Him...

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 3:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ranja In my observations poly is usually arranged by one very 'up for it' Dominant man who manages to 'keep' several women... some more desperate than others.... Or a Dominant Female who manages several men... any other combo of subs and Doms just gets a bit confusing i think. This theory falls down when you look outside the scope of BDSM and find that plenty identify an poly and vanilla

Apocalypso -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 3:06:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn The anti-poly movement did not start with (1) man (1) woman Adam & Eve. Many of the people in the bible embraced poly long before this story was written. I do not think it would be a stretch to suggest at least 1,000 years after the death of Christ Poly was considered acceptable. Highly arguable. In particular, a lot of the multiple partner relationships in the Bible aren't necessarily 'love matches' in the modern sense of the word. quote: The psychological 'warfare' on the proper way to manage relationships has been rammed down our throats for a long time - it seems to me by religion.. That's a very common view, but I'd query it. I'd see the role of feudalism and then capitalism as far more important in that development. Property laws and specifically inheritance. (Hence the fact in many feudal societies it was accepted that have other sexualpartners would cheat but was considered completely beyond the pale for women to do the same). quote: By the evolutionary standard "single pairing" for the purpose of gene reproduction seems to violate a process which has been hardwired into out neurons for millions of years. If this is correct one can assume monogamy is not natural - rather forced. I'm highly uneasy with an argument based on what is and isn't "natural". It's dangerously close to biological reductionism for my tastes. quote: The fact is the majority of LTRs fail along with at least 1/2 of the marriages. I've read quite a few biology journals or even 1-2 articles from the Kinsey Institute(school leading human sexuality education) that theorize the reason we fail at relationships is because 1 man 1 woman violates our natural instinct Or it could merely be that relationships fail and there is no longer as much societal pressure to stay in a failed relationship. Occam's Razor.

Racquelle -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 3:20:11 AM)
I don't usually look to insects to determine how to operate my intimate affairs. For one thing, my mates are not likely to be lapped up by a nosey pangolin. Frankly, I think some people are happier being monogamous and some are happier being polyamorous. More hurt comes from those pressured to be in the camp that doesn't suit them. Humans are fucked up, but we still keep going on.

DemonKia -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 3:22:52 AM)
FR, after read thru Firstly, what I actually think about the shape of this thread so far is that the intrinsic nature of the human is flexibility, adaptability. Primarily thru tool use, but a very large-scope definition of tools, in which our conscious awareness of past, present & future, & the ability to abstract, are just as much tools as the more obvious physical suspects . . . . . But, playing a bit of semi-facetious luciferian advocacy, I'm tempted to say that, sexually speaking, the design seems to imply that polyandry should be the norm. One guy, many women (polygyny) does tend to have a bit of a headscratching quality given the bare fact that a woman coitally can do many, many men in a day, but a guy, left purely to his own equipment, is hard pressed to engage in coitus with but a fraction of the numbers . . . . . . . Jus' sayin' . . . . . . skulks away . . . . . . Well, yeah, & a little wishin' & hopin' . . . .. impish snicker [;)]

eyesopened -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 4:21:18 AM)
Well if we are going only by what is "natural".... What kind of sex is natural for a species can be seen in the shape of the penis. The dog penis has a hook to keep him attached to the female even after coitus so that he can have first dibs on the offspring. The cat penis has a barb. The female cat releases an egg upon feeling the pain of this barb. One egg for each act of sex, the cat is designed to produce offspring by different fathers within the same litter. Cats are solitary animals, dogs are social animals. Within a wolf pack, only the dominant male and dominant female reproduce regardless of the number of males and females in the pack. The human penis is designed to produce a siphon action within the vagina to siphon away the previous males' ejaculate and the human females is designed to have much longer orgasms and many oragsms so to better attract and accomodate multiple sex partners. Therefore what is unnatural in the human species is for female monogomy as well as male monogomy. However, female promiscuity has been demonized for countless eons. This is strictly a result of males owning property and wanting to leave inheritances and thereby needing some assurance the offspring are his. When childbirth itself was a 50-50 chance at a death sentence, when infant mortality was at staggering levels, it would make sense for a man of some means to support multiple females, to do so in order to assure survival of the species while having some assurance the offspring could inherit. Humans are also hard wired for murder, theft and a lot of other natural actions that simply are not condusive to having a society or a civilization. The cool thing about humans is that we can modify our actions to fit the society in which we live.

DesFIP -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 5:02:37 AM)
Some birds are monogamous, some aren't. Swans, wild geese are. The geese that take the point of the vee during migrations are widowers. But comparing women bought and forced into a poly situation to women who choose such a situation willingly is apples to oranges.

xiam -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 7:39:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso ...Highly arguable. In particular, a lot of the multiple partner relationships in the Bible aren't necessarily 'love matches' in the modern sense of the word... Or sex matches, as seems to be much of the impetus in modern polygamous relationships. From a historical standpoint, having multiple wives was a way to protect and provide for the well-being of women as the responsibility of physical and material maintenance fell upon the shoulder's of men. In modern civilisation, we've lost those traditional gender roles and a woman is not only quite capable of providing for herself, but is also expected to by men and by society at large. Marriage bonds are not needed to establish inheritance or ensure a woman is cared for after her spouse's death. The collective experience has been cast aside in favour of the individual experience; it's the way we've set up our society and they way we tend to live our lives. Polygamy, at this point, seems to me very much about the individual despite the apparent contradiction of saying that. It's more about pleasure than the responibility of sustanence, and the pursuit of individual pleasure and self expression has become our society's number one promise and number one goal.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 7:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xiam Polygamy, at this point, seems to me very much about the individual despite the apparent contradiction of saying that. It's more about pleasure than the responibility of sustanence, and the pursuit of individual pleasure and self expression has become our society's number one promise and number one goal. It depends, are we talking about sex or relationships because if relationships polygamy does require working together as a cohesive unit, if jsut sex then yeah fair enough its about getting your rocks off.

Apocalypso -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 8:00:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xiam Or sex matches, as seems to be much of the impetus in modern polygamous relationships. From a historical standpoint, having multiple wives was a way to protect and provide for the well-being of women as the responsibility of physical and material maintenance fell upon the shoulder's of men. Depends. We're not always looking at marriages per se in this context- David certainly had lots of wives, but also lots of concubines. We see a similar pattern with many (male) medieval nobles, who had a wife to bear heirs but also kept mistresses, often pretty openly, as well. The stability of the latter group was shaky, to say the least.

xiam -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 8:08:03 AM)
Yeah, i was thinking more about polygamy in the context of multiple partners than the idea of communal living arrangements, as that's the impression i got from the OP. :)

slavekal -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 8:23:33 AM)
I wonder if the dynamic is fundamentally different for femdom relationships. I am with an avowed cuckoldress now. I wonder what role gender plays in the the way things work.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 9:08:03 AM)
quote: In my observations poly is usually arranged by one very 'up for it' Dominant man who manages to 'keep' several women... some more desperate than others.... Or a Dominant Female who manages several men... I am guessing that most of your observations have happened within the context of the D/s community, which really skews the picture of polyamory. I've been involved for over 30 years in the poly community, incorporative of both the general poly community and the D/s-fetish-kink poly community, and have been providing commitment ceremonies, counseling, natal blessings, etc., to poly families for more than a quarter of a century. From this perspective, it's been my experience that poly is -most typically- arranged completely outside of any D/s relationship at all... in other words, it's just another way to shape a family. Adding D/s and kink to the mix can make it much more complex, but the majority of poly relationships are about creating community, not about creating a harem, regardless of which gender individual is the sole participant of their gender. And, informationally, IMO, if all the people involved have made a commitment to the relationship, these are -all- "poly" relationships. It doesn't matter how they're configured, who is "in charge" if someone is in charge, or the gender mix of the people involved. What makes a relationship poly is the commitment between the individuals. In terms of the OP, I don't know that there is -any- social construct that is 'hardwired' into our genetic nature. Human beings are opportunists, and our functionality comes, in part, from our capacity to adapt. Relationships, whether monogamous or polyamorous, are extruded, I think, out of our needs of the moment (or at least our perceived needs) in relation to where we see ourselves within our existing community. For people who live on the fringes of human society, the pool of perceivable options is more open. One thing this -does- offer us is a greater chance to choose the option that works for us, since we're not so invested in fitting into mainstream culture. This provides the option of greater flexibility and greater adaptability, so those people who are not tied into "it can be this way and -only- this way, or I can't function" have the availability to find a working solution in nearly -any- situation in which they find themselves, in terms of human relationships... and -this- is definitely an advantage in terms of protecting our genetic viability. Dame Calla

daddysliloneds -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 9:18:24 AM)
poly and/or monogomous? there's no challenge in your assessment; it's a matter of choice for humans ... in the end, it's not the type of relationship that will determine it's success or failure, it's the people within the relationship.

PeonForHer -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 9:21:51 AM)
I'm highly uneasy with an argument based on what is and isn't "natural". I'm perfectly easy about such arguments: that is, I'm completely comfortable that they're all crap. Reading and writing isn't natural. Cooking food isn't. Talking isn't; cycling, wearing clothes, making or using machines, laughing, shaking hands, using toilets, thinking, reasoning, studying any subject (including biology) - all those things aren't natural either. In the end there are only two positions I think one can take: either "the only natural things for humans to do are what other animals do", or "whatever humans do is 'natural' for humans to do". I take the latter.

HeadmasterDavid -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/25/2009 9:31:04 AM)
I suggest you Google the following words: Kerista Compersion and then read what Eve Furchgott wrote when she first got into the commune, and then 20 years later when she got out and was free to speak. Jealousy seems to be the big problem, and the only way around it is to fight it rationally. Compersion does not seem to come naturally. Headmaster David

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125