Understanding but not...

[jackfaire]

For me the interesting thing is I wasn't jealous until after I was cheated on and it was her idea to stop having an open relationship.

Before we got married we had an open you can sleep with someone else but I am the one you come home to type relationship.

The night before our wedding she said she wanted us to not do that anymore.

For me the jealousy when she cheated on me wasn't about the fact that she did it so much as she didn't talk to me about it beforehand.

It felt like being lied to. She spent 2 years telling me I was it for her and the only one she needed and then without discussing with me that her needs changed she goes off with another guy.

As far as Monogamy. Well the thing is how you live your life when you get into a relationship isn't just up to you. Whether or not you take that job in New York is as much a decision made by your spouse as it is by you. In a relationship where there are multiple spouses say that most of them have good jobs they don't want to leave. Then boom your grounded you don't get to go take that job because suddenly majority rules.

For me it's hard enough to get what I want when I am single trying to attain my desires and balance another person's would be even more difficult.

[Gravekeeper]

Re: Jealousy

Best theory is its for reproductive success ( like many things. -.- ), ensuring you don't waste your time and effort raising someone else's offspring. Rather than your own. Not the length of child raising itself.

Re: Monogamy

It is not an imposition to control the masses, you're mixing marriage into it. Polygamy and monogamy are both strategies for the success of offspring. Humanity has wandered back and forth between both depending on which works best in a given region and culture: Investing all your resources in a handfull of offspring that would thus be more successful, or maximizing the chances of your genes by having tons of offspring. You are correct in that the Church did at one point impose it through marriage to control property lineage, but monogamy predates the church by hundreds and hundreds of years. The vast majority of traditional cultures were not rampantly polygamous but went back and forth between the two depending on the current society and its needs.

Evolution means adaption, and adaption means using the best strategy for a given enviroment. But we're long long past the point of being grunting animals in heat and long past the point where reproductive success is a factor in relationships. The modern relationship is about companionship, not whether or not your kids will survive on the Serengeti. You cannot lay blanket blame for polygamy or monogamy on biology anymore.

When you remove biology, humans are both selfish and emotionally limited. We want someone all to ourselves and don't typically have the emotional capacity / energy to give that level of commitment to multiple people. Which is where we hit the difference between social and biological monogamy. We are largely socially monogamous, but not all of us are biologically monogamous. Aka, like jackfaire said, you might get your needs elsewhere ( biological polygamy ), but you still come home to the same person ( social monogamy ).

Which is where the mono's and poly's split. Most people are wired in the head to be socially and biologically monogamous. But some people are wired the other way and seperate them. Which is why we all look at each other weirdly. Because its impossible for us to understand the way each other thinks about it. Which is why no one understands people who are truly polygamous, and truly polygamous people look around wondering how anyone can have all their emotional and physical needs met by just one person. We both see each other as being unnatural because at a fundemental level in our brain the switch is on a different setting. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not sure that the whole "we must pair up and be exclusive" thing isn't a learned behavior that we've all been taught is 'how things are' as opposed to how things really are.

Then again, I've always wanted to be friend with everybody (that's only a slight exaggeration); the idea of not wanting to be friends with the people around who share interests leaves me mildly baffled.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure that the whole "we must pair up and be exclusive" thing isn't a learned behavior that we've all been taught is 'how things are' as opposed to how things really are.

Were at various points in our evolution as a species sure, but not are me thinks. If it were a learned behaviour, we would not have polygamists standing around looking at us going "Wtf, man?" after being raised in a society that bombards them with monogamy as the right way from birth. So I'm going with the brain switch.

But I think biology/polygamy gets scapegoated by people ( re: men, always men. >.> ) who were just acting like dicks though. There's a big difference between "I don't understand how all your needs can be met by one person" and "You mean I can bang all 6 of these chicks? Booyah!".

[siead_lietrathua]

i think some people are just wired poly and others monogamous. at least as i've seen talking to both poly and monog friends.
i've always gotten confused watching monogamist friends profess undying love someone one day, and after breaking up hate them with the anger of 1000 gods or something.
wheras they talk to me and seem to think i find primary and secondary partner interchangable, which is not true at all. they are both irreplacable to me. and i've never hated an ex, even the douchbag ones. >.<

its not about "needs being met" really. you just meet someone, and love them, and it just is.

[Gravekeeper]

its not about "needs being met" really. you just meet someone, and love them, and it just is.

I meant that in a general sense, not a physical one, FYI. For someone wired for mono, rather than stereo, emotional capacity in that regard is limited to just one channel. For someone on stereo, you still have a free speaker and probably wouldn't listen to mono your whole life.

[siead_lietrathua]

I meant that in a general sense, not a physical one, FYI. For someone wired for mono, rather than stereo, emotional capacity in that regard is limited to just one channel. For someone on stereo, you still have a free speaker and probably wouldn't listen to mono your whole life.

oh, i know, i understand it. but can't comprehend it jsut because of the way i'm wired.

[Mytical]

For some, the desire to procreate does not even enter into the equation either. In my case, it is a one way street..I would have no desire to be with another if I am with a person..but I am also not a jealous person. I might not be wired/able to share a dwelling with my SO's other partner (if they had one), but it also would not bother me.

Then again, I've been told that I do not care enough to chase somebody if they tell me it is over. Which is not true. Both times I've been told this (I've only had a grand total of three 'special others') it hurt tremendously. I just cared for them enough to put their happiness ahead of my own. Can I be a jealous beast? Yes. I could stalk them, hound them, etc. If my special other tells me "This guy is bugging me and won't let me be." I can be the most jealous person you have ever met. If it makes them happy, I can be anything from the most jealous person alive, to what I am now. It comes down to the fact that my desire to make them happy is the root of who I am. So if they are happier with us not being together, as much as it hurts, I will let them go. Sadly this means I won't chase them like a lot want, which is one reason I've had so few SO. Quality over quantity .

I've heard the "You put women on pedestals." (or worship, etc). Again no. While I am a nice guy, and go out of my way to help people when I can, it is not about 'worship'. I was raised to think that you go out of your way to treat people like you want to be treated..and that making your special other happy would be even above that. I expect the same in return from my SO. That they want my happiness as well.

[jackfaire]

Evolution wise monogamy benefits the man not the woman.

When we were living in caves the female was more likely to be promiscuous than the male.

This is because no matter who impregnates her she will pass on her genes period.

The male however must pick one female and spend his time keeping her from other potential mates until his child is conceived and born to ensure that his genetic line continues.

Imagine trying to do that if you have more than one mate to keep away from multiple rivals. You would end up clubbing yourself in sheer frustration.

In more recent times as our culture went through a period where men were considered to be superior to women and women did not have equal rights the situation shifted to where monogamy benefited women more than men.

Now we are at a point where Women have all the same legal rights as Men and may work their own jobs, own their own homes, and need not rely on the man to support her.

If the man wants his genetic line to continue with as many people there are it's not difficult for him to accomplish this.

Thus neither side necessarily benefits from Monogamy but it doesn't hurt them either.

[Gravekeeper]

Then again, I've been told that I do not care enough to chase somebody if they tell me it is over.

I've never understood that particular mind game. Thats how my last relationship ended. I was presented with the "Oh, I just really wanted you to fight for me to prove it despite what I'm saying and doing to the contrary!". I basically told her "Well, have fun then" and broke up with her on the spot. Sorry, this isn't high school. If you want a relationship with another adult, grow the Hell up first.

The male however must pick one female and spend his time keeping her from other potential mates until his child is conceived and born to ensure that his genetic line continues.

The counter-strategy though is to simply mate with as many females as possible. Monogamy basically started to evolve after intelligence and social interaction began to evolve to more complex levels resulting in a greater and greater long term investment in one's offspring to insure their success. Homo erectus wasn't exactly monogamous, but it was the first to start forming complex social groups and speak a simplistic proto language. But they show quite a bit of sexual dimorphism ( males and females are physically very different ) which tends to develop in species with multiple mates.

Conversesly, Homo Sapiens, have very little sexual dimorphism ( For all our muttering about men and women being different, physically speaking we're pretty similar as far as nature is concerned ) as a result of monogamy / pair bonding. It was not a matter of fending off horny suiters from your slut of a mate. It was a matter of providing for her and protecting her for a 9 month gestation period ( which is brutally long in the natural world ) then doing likewise for her and your offspring for years on end. The more intelligent we became, the more time needed to be invested and monogamy became a superior strategy. Which likely helped us, at least in part, to render neanderthals extinct through competition and interbreeding.

Polygamy creeps up often in culture over history not because we're particularly inclined towards it me thinks, but because of A) Power or B) The demands of society. Monogamous marriage typically wasn't for love, but for practical, political or economic reasons. You picked love up as your second wife, cocubine, etc. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

I was presented with the "Oh, I just really wanted you to fight for me to prove it despite what I'm saying and doing to the contrary!". I basically told her "Well, have fun then" and broke up with her on the spot. Sorry, this isn't high school. If you want a relationship with another adult, grow the Hell up first.

This is one of the few aspects of life that my brother was mature about right out of high school. He's actually become close friends with a couple of other ex-boyfriends after some chick pulled the, "I'm going to hang all over some random guy so my man will fight him for my honor" bullshit and he refused to play the part assigned.

Monogamy basically started to evolve after intelligence and social interaction began to evolve to more complex levels resulting in a greater and greater long term investment in one's offspring to insure their success.

Not really. More societies than not developed as polygamous. As in 80% or so, if that first article I linked has accurate data.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

The counter-strategy though is to simply mate with as many females as possible.

Which doesn't tend to work because someone's coming along forcing her to lose the child then replacing it with one of his own.

[Gravekeeper]

Not really. More societies than not developed as polygamous. As in 80% or so, if that first article I linked has accurate data.

Maybe I missed something, but the first link seemed to be rambling on quite a bit about monogamous marriage specifically in relation to the church. When in fact it pre-dates all of that and I'm not talking about marriage to begin with. Marriage is a completely cultural construct.

Which doesn't tend to work because someone's coming along forcing her to lose the child then replacing it with one of his own.

Back up there, if you're going to claim we went around Falcon Punching pregnant women so we could bang them ( Ignoring the various methods by which said Falcon Punch could kill them and the recovery time required for said banging to even work if they did survive ) you're gonna need to link some shred of evidence >.>

[jackfaire]

you're gonna need to link some shred of evidence >.>

It's a theory put forth by the writer Stephen Baxter in his book Evolution based on studies of primate behavior I believe. I don't know all of his sources off the top of my head.

That being said it is actually fairly easy to make a female human miscarry without killing her. For one other than the baby not much vital is in the area of the uterus.

What I am suggesting is that our distant ancestors who were no more intelligent than a gorilla might have done that. Not suggesting your grandpa did.

[Gravekeeper]

ItWhat I am suggesting is that our distant ancestors who were no more intelligent than a gorilla might have done that. Not suggesting your grandpa did.

I'm sensing we're working on vastly different time scales here. I was working from Homo Erectus to Sapien. Which is where the real shift from polygamy to monogamous pair bonding seems to have occurred.

Also, primates don't falcon punch, they just kill or eat their rival's offspring >.>