On monogamy...

[annwfyn]

I found this quote while drifting around livejournal communities. Tis from the polyamory community, unsurprisingly enough.

a typical monogamous relationship usually does not leave room for total honesty on a day to day basis.
these things develop and a monogamous environment sometimes does not allow one to change and develop as you go.

I looked at that, and blinked, and pondered, and looked again.

And now I offer it up to my readership.

How unreasonable/untrue is that statement? Or is the writer right on the money?

Opinions?

Comments

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

I would say that the first half is crap. THe second half: monogamous environment sometimes does not allow one to change and develop as you go. can be true, but it can be equally true in a poly relationship.

Hrmm

[hardwired.livejournal.com]

Honestly.

The comment is coming from a "poly" person who is "pro-poly anto-mono". You justify your choice by denegrating the alternative.

What he is saying is: "Its great being poly, all the mono people are teh suck"

It's not a justified or clear point, simply a flag waving exercise.

[molez.livejournal.com]

I think honesty is not something that if forced upon you by the type of relationship you are in, it's quite possible to be completly honest in any kind of relationship, it just takes a lot of commitment, a willingness to talk and understanding (on both side).

But then again I have odd honesty issues. *shrug*

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's true.
You can be monogamous and honest.

For instance;

Boyfriend - I really find such and such attractive, I'm not going to act on it I just thought it was honest to tell you.
Girlfriend - Ouch, stingy, stingy - I know you are honest with me though and won't act on it as you have said you won't.

Someone finding someone attractive does not mean they have to act on it. The suggestion that monogamy excludes honesty suggests that people are unable to be faithful, the fact that they are in a 'mongamous' relationship preventing them to be able to be honest about their infidelity.

Well I think that

a) A lot of people are quite capable of keeping their genitals to themselves should they wish to do so.
b) Honesty may not always be pleasent and may hurt but there is no reason why full honesty should not exist in a monogamous relationship - by definition, dishonesty only comes into play if you start being dishonest. Whether it be about sex or anything else, both polyamourous and monogamous people are capable of lying and telling the truth.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

You can get Dishonesty among the poly and honesty amoung the Mono crowd.
Thus the great Lexx says its BS.
Humm maybe the Poly-golly crowd should get there lives in order before patting themselves on the back........how many problems of honesty and hurt are caused when one link in a chain breaks?
Intresting to develop a theory that goes against our Evolutionary development?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it's true of some monogamous relationships, just like I suspect it's true of some polygamous relationships.

Sounds like its author has had some bad experiences that they think are transposed worldwide.

[castorlion.livejournal.com]

Intresting to develop a theory that goes against our Evolutionary development?


Huh? Would you mind explaining that one a bit more?

[castorpollux23.livejournal.com]

I think it is entirely dependent on the people involved. Surely there are poly people who are hoenst, and there are mono people that are honest.

This person has a perception in a certain way, and though it may be true for him, it is not necessarily true for others. Of course, the verasity of the statement depends entirely on your outlook and on human nature. If for instance, you belive one gender incapable of monogamy, this statement would be more true, if you don't believe that, this statement is false.

All and all, I think this individual is trying to promote thier particular lifestyle.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

Look at the design of the a womens body.

We have most of the adaptions that species that Life mate have. for example the women does not show when she is in heat. This means that the male has to invest 24/7 time in the female to impregnate her and protect her from other males. also the lack of musk tends to be a dead give away in life mating species. As well as the lack of size differental between males and females.....suggesting a lack of Rutting season.

Agreed we now have as a survival trait developed complex cognative powers, that now can be turned to ideals due to the dominance of the species on this planet.....thus new ideas come in and are tried out and reason alows us to fight our evolutionary make-up

I as a palio man find it alittle odd that we have spent 2.5 million years becoming this way to suddenly in the last few thousand decide to shag everything that moves :)

But then again it could be argued that this will be the next stage in our evolution?

[wildrogue.livejournal.com]

I suspect what they mean is that in their idea of an average monogamous relationship doesn't allow for saying to your partner 'I find X attractive'. Celebrities don't apply here, but in terms of other friends and random strangers it is often considered taboo to admit to an attraction to anyone other than your chosen partner.

Personally I feel that if your partner is so insecure that they feel threatened by a natural biological response to an attractive person there are deeper issues in the relationship that need addressing. But then I'm a very lucky girl and can talk to Scott about these things.

[castorlion.livejournal.com]

Surely that argument doesn't take into account the tribal and cooperative nature of humans, though? Suggesting that a male needs to invest 24/7 time in a female to impregnate her does rather suggest that only one male is doing so, an assumption which I'm not at all certain is entirely fair.

It's my opinion that monogamy is a societal development, not an evolutionary one. Thoughts?

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

No Polyamory may be a socal one......but the Current most excepted Palioanthropological theory is that Manogamy was an evolutionary step to get one-on-one protection and welfair by pregnant females.
Also if we look back at humans before 6000 years ago and the blooming of civalisaton most lived in small family groups not tribes....ie mated couples and there offspring.
the Tribal/troop mis-conception comes from people seeing early civalisation and saying hay we must always have been like this and watching Chimps, who are close in most things but socal and sexual behaviour. I am not saying that some lucky males did not have small harems of related females. However it is more likly that Polyamoury developed with civalizaton as more time was spent away from huntergatheriung and onbnrecreation etc. If we were a naturaly polyamourus socity we would behave more like the Pigmy chimp. Not like the life mating Orangutan which we do!

[borusa.livejournal.com]

Sources?
I can't find anything to back up your assertions here, though maybe I'm not looking for the right things.

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

The only words I'd challenge them on are "A typical" and "usually". Replace them with "Some" and "sometimes", and the statement is true. Packed with spin, sure, but still true.

Of course,you could then say exactly the same about any type of relationship.

[castorpollux23.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you can always replace the words in the statement with other relationship types...

[vireton.livejournal.com]

ypu could substitute monogamous for poly and have the same arguement about the statment as is currently going on!!

just wondering any reason for asking?? just curious i have meandering thoughts sometimes and wonder weather i should ask people on Lj

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

Go to the RSM Libary and they have a lot of the up to date Papers on Paleantology, don't know if they have them online. Will find the tital of a fantastic book that goes through evolution from a feminist stand point....can't remeber the tital....will get back to you. But for some interesting but sensational stuff you could alaways go to Lord Winstone.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

Bonobo (Pygmy Chimpanzee)
(Pan paniscus)

Social Structure
Group Size: 50-200, usually groups of 6-15 for foraging
Fission-fusion grouping with multiple males and females. Foraging groups are also made up of males and females.
Females are more likely to leave their natal group than males, who stay in their mother's group. Groups tend to be more stable than those of P. troglodytes, perhaps due to plentiful food sources. There are also more male-female interactions outside of mating(grooming), and less aggressiveness.
Home Range: 2200-5800ha
Day Range: 1200-2400m


Behavior
Diurnal, arboreal, and terrestrial. Sleep in nests built in trees. Limited tool use.
Male and female dominance hierarchies, however the alpha female is dominant over the alpha male, unlike any other great ape.
Bonobos are highly "promiscuous", often engaging in sexual behaviors outside of that for reproduction. This is thought to be one of the main reasons that bonobos are so infrequently aggresive as the sexual interactions reduces tensions. Mating postures include face to face and dorsoventral as well as others. There is also a large occurence of female-female genital (G-G) rubbing throught the age groups, again including face-to-face positions. The only aparent sexual "taboo" being mothers mating with their mature sons.

A start, If we want to understand palientology then we start with facts that we have a species that we know. Next stage look at the sexual physiology. These are after all, could be deamed to live in a true Polyamourus socaity.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

Causes of Monogamy
Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom. A few insects are socially monogamous; a few fish are socially monogamous; a lot of birds are socially monogamous; and a few mammals are socially monogamous. These species did not inherit social monogamy from a common ancestor. Instead, social monogamy has evolved independently in different species.

Some factors that contribute to the evolution of social monogamy include:

resources available in the surrounding environment
geographic distribution of mates
incidence of parasites and sexually transmitted diseases
amount of parental care given to offspring
mate guarding behaviors
infanticide
length of breeding season
chemical mechanisms of bonding in the brain
This list is not complete. Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of social monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy in different species. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation of why different species evolved monogamous mating systems.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

What can the mating systems of close genetic relatives reveal about the evolution of monogamy in humans? One answer to this question is that, because humans are genetically closest to bonobos and chimpanzees, humans may still have genes for promiscuity. Another answer to the question is that, because humans are most closely related to bonobos and chimpanzees, the promiscuity of bonobos and chimpanzees serves as the best model for mating in the early ancestors of humans. Both answers suggest human ancestors may have been promiscuous rather than monogamous.

Unfortunately, both of these answers assume millions of years of evolution have not changed the mating systems of bonobos and chimpanzees. This assumption is strongly challenged by fossil evidence. Fossils of Sahelanthropus suggest the common ancestor of humans, bonobos and chimpanzees was not like a modern bonobo or a modern chimpanzee.

"Most surprising of all may be what Sahelanthropus reveals about the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Paleoanthropologists have typically imagined that that creature resembled a chimp in having, among other things, a strongly projecting lower face, thinly enameled molars and large canines. Yet Sahelanthropus, for all its generally apelike traits, has only a moderately prognathic face, relatively thick enamel, small canines and a brow ridge larger than that of any living ape. 'If Sahelanthropus shows us anything, it shows us that the last common ancestor was not a chimpanzee,' Berkeley’s White remarks. 'But why should we have expected otherwise?' Chimpanzees have had just as much time to evolve as humans have had, he points out, and they have become highly specialized, fruit-eating apes." (Wong, 2003, page 61) [29]

Bonobos and chimpanzees have undergone millions of years of evolution since they split from the common ancestor with humans. Sexual promiscuity in bonobos and chimpanzees may have evolved after the split from the common ancestor with humans. In that case, humans would not share the genes for promiscuity, and modern bonobos and chimpanzees would not be good models for sexual behavior in early human ancestors. It is simply not possible to draw conclusions about the evolution of monogamy in humans by studying the mating systems of modern bonobos and chimpanzees.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

see below a start :)

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

The relative sizes of male testes often reflect mating systems. In species with promiscuous mating systems, where many males mate with many females, the testes tend to be relatively large. This appears to be the result of sperm competition. Males with large testes produce more sperm and thereby gain an advantage impregnating females. In polygynous species, where one male controls sexual access to females, the testes tend to be small. One male defends exclusive sexual access to a group of females and thereby eliminates sperm competition.

testis size in humans is consistent with the modern pattern of social monogamy. It is not possible to measure the size of testes in the fossil remains of human ancestors. This limits the usefulness of testis size in understanding the evolution of monogamy in humans.

"total honesty" ????

[lapinenoireuk.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea ???

I mean would you like to like in a world of "total honesty" (not just in the "I fancy a crack at that" level but in open statement of all feelings) or do "little white lies" provide the grist of civilisation ?

I ask this question knowing that I would (do) work better / have less conflict in a "civilised" / "untruthful" society.

But to return to subject, as others have said, this correspondent appears to have "issues" that cause them to speak in broad generalisations (IMHO).

The disilusioned cynic

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

uksilverfang and I talk about such things too.

Honesty is one of the things that keeps people together. Without it they end up going out with a mask of someone that doesn't actually exist.

I've never, for example, seen my parents be dishonest to one another, even when their marriage was shakiest.

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

The intresting thought for me is would Poligamy and polyamoury mean that we will become less agressive and thus less competative and sucssesful as a species?