The sacred
In the movie A Hidden Life (based on a true story), an Austrian farmer (Franz) refuses to collaborate with the Nazis. There is no benefit to him in this decision: he is subject first to humiliation and abuse by his fellow villagers, then to torture and indignity in prison, and finally death. His wife also does not benefit, but suffers greatly from his decision, first by having to farm without a strong man to help her (yes, pre-industrial farming is one of those occupations where the average man's superior upper body strength and spatiotemporal abilities make a difference), missing her husband and finally having to live without her soul-mate. The children will also suffer after his death, not having the loving father that he was. Why did he make such an apparently foolish decision, against his and his family's self interest? He repeatedly says that it's not because of ideological stubbornness, because he thinks his ideology is better or wiser than anyone else's, or that he is morally superior to anyone else. I think he did this because he was protecting something sacred in him that would be compromised if he agreed to collaborate with the Nazis. The domain of the sacred is outside of the domain of economic bargaining and contracts ("just work in a hospital and you can live"). It transcends self interest and even one's own life. It is not something most moderns understand, though it goes beyond most concepts of the God that Frantz and Fani (Franz's wife) had, and that modernity killed. It is something some monogamists refer to when they talk about the sacredness of their relationship, but they attach economic bargaining ("I'll give you sex and/or economic support if you are sexually loyal and exclusive with me") to it. They attach self-interest to this supposedly sacred relationship: it should provide them with safety, a sense of control and entitlement of the other's energy. And they are not willing to suffer much for it (as in go through jealousy to figure out what is underneath it). A contract makes things simple, safe, and self-serving, but kills the sacred. To say to one's lover: I trust that you love me and that you know I love you, and that you will care about me as much as you care about yourself or anyone else you love, and therefore do everything you can to protect the sacred in you and in me--that is what Fani did at the end when she said "no matter what you do, I am with you". And though Franz and the earthly part of their relationship died, the sacred love part did not. That is why some polyamorist people are willing to suffer derision, ridicule, loneliness, celibacy. Because they believe that there is something sacred about love and sexuality in humans and that agreeing to monogamy kills it. And without the sacred there is not much reason to live, so they, like Frantz, prefer the suffering to killing the sacred. Now it may be true, as we discuss below, that most people, especially during the early stages of a romantic relationship are unable to engage in an equally intense way with more than one lover. And it may be that some people can never engage with more than one lover, but if they care about the sacred, they would not impose a contract on their lover. What good would the contract do when the sacred is killed? In such a culture there is a high rate of cheating, of relationships dying To believe that someone cares so much about you that your pain is also theirs--that is part of the sacred, and would in practice create more security and more pair-bonding (at least given where we are coming from, where most people have deep insecurities and abandonment trauma, hence their lovers will be less likely to go off with someone else once the sacred is protected).
In the following I will focus on heterosexual relationships, though one could generalize to homosexual ones. I don't know enough about trans people to say whether the following can be generalized to their situation.
Spiritual growth and genetic/cultural evolution
There are currently two hypotheses for monogamy that I'm aware of:
1. It is a function of early brain development, like sexual preference. Some people develop as monogamous and some as polyamorous, based on genetics and environment, similar to how some people are gay, straight or bisexual. This can be later regulated through hormones such as oxytocin. Aka "wiring".
2. It is a strategy that can benefit individuals and/or groups that adopt it, such as enabling them to survive in certain environments better than other strategies (and other individuals or groups that adopt different strategies).
These are not necessarily in opposition to each other, as often what is evolutionarily selected for has proximal causes. But the practical implications can be very different. If it's a function of early brain development, then it may not be easy to change, and then there is potential for tragedy when two people fall in love and they are not both monogamous or both polyamorous (as in I'm poly, she's mono, she wants a monopoly on my energy, and I want a mono-poly relationship ;-)). On the other hand, if it's a strategy that benefitted individuals and groups at one time when the environment was different, but may actually be harmful now, then there is much hope that it can change as to avoid misery, for example in the case of a mono/poly relationship. And of course the same can be said about polyamory: it may be that being polyamorous is not selected for in the current environment and it would behoove the poly person to change their strategy to monogamy, if the first hypothesis is not true.
However, there is evidence that hunter gatherer cultures are more egalitarian than agrarian cultures and also more than industrial ones ^^^, and it would also follow that this egalitarianism would extend to sexual satisfaction as well. Sexually frustrated men are more violent ^^^^^. If in addition there is not much competition for resources with neighboring tribes (as was the case throughout most of pre-history), there is not much reason for war. In theory, monogamy could lead to sexual satisfaction, but men are wired for diversity and so it usually doesn't. Polygyny could also lead to sexual satisfaction for men, but it can also lead to only the alpha males getting laid, the other men being frustrated, and unhappy women(which implies unhappy men). The system leading to most sexual satisfaction should be an egalitarian one, combining both polygyny and polyandry, aka polyamory ***. In addition, if people have ego-transcending, intimate, non-sexual experiences on a daily basis by communing either with their tribe members or with nature, sex becomes less important and obsessive.
People often get so immersed in their own culture that they are blinded to the fact that certain things (like monogamy) are not universal and that different cultures see what we consider sacred differently. It is not pleasant then to see a correlation between what we consider sacred and violence (which most of us consider profane). Jealousy may be universal, but its intensity and the way different cultures deal with it are not. For some cultures it doesn't have the emotional intensity that it has for us, and it can be easily diffused^. The old testament on the contrary thought jealousy was an emotion worthy of God.
It's tricky to discuss this with people who believe that monogamy is either a choice they make that represents a sacred expression of their deepest selves or that it is ordained by God. One must tread lightly and with care to not hurt these people. I want to assure you, dear reader, if you are one of those people, that I mean no disrespect to either your deepest core or to God. I recognize that most of us, not just monogamous people, have a deep yearning for a deep love commitment, for someone who will adore us and let us adore them, for someone who will understand our deepest core and will allow us to reciprocate in an environment of safety, for someone who will grow with us and even challenge us spiritually, will stick with us despite our ugly parts and uplift our innate goodness, beauty and truth. And it may be that for some or even most people, such an ambitious goal can only practically be accomplished with one other person at a time, given the short time that we are given in this life, and how our bodies and souls break down with age and just living in a harsh and traumatic world.
Even if all that is true, can we not try to let other relationships have more breathing space, and allow them to seek their own expression, at least once we have gotten through the initial "new relationship energy" with our life partners and we don't feel compelled to spend all our time with them anymore? Can we not try to deal with jealousy within ourselves (with help from our partner) rather than eliminating the possibility of it, or projecting our anger and insecurity onto others? Could jealousy have some value to teach us? I'm not talking only about sexual relationships, but also emotional or intellectual ones. Monogamous people are threatened by the intensity of the connection with others, not just sex per say, though sex can be very intense emotionally and many monogamous people (perhaps more in certain sub-cultures like French, or Yuppie) sometimes are willing to accept their partners having sex without much emotional bonding with others.
Why do we want to encourage good will, generosity, kindness, and consideration (this is an analogy, I'm not saying polyamory encourages these more than monogamy)? Two reasons:
There are currently two hypotheses for monogamy that I'm aware of:
1. It is a function of early brain development, like sexual preference. Some people develop as monogamous and some as polyamorous, based on genetics and environment, similar to how some people are gay, straight or bisexual. This can be later regulated through hormones such as oxytocin. Aka "wiring".
2. It is a strategy that can benefit individuals and/or groups that adopt it, such as enabling them to survive in certain environments better than other strategies (and other individuals or groups that adopt different strategies).
These are not necessarily in opposition to each other, as often what is evolutionarily selected for has proximal causes. But the practical implications can be very different. If it's a function of early brain development, then it may not be easy to change, and then there is potential for tragedy when two people fall in love and they are not both monogamous or both polyamorous (as in I'm poly, she's mono, she wants a monopoly on my energy, and I want a mono-poly relationship ;-)). On the other hand, if it's a strategy that benefitted individuals and groups at one time when the environment was different, but may actually be harmful now, then there is much hope that it can change as to avoid misery, for example in the case of a mono/poly relationship. And of course the same can be said about polyamory: it may be that being polyamorous is not selected for in the current environment and it would behoove the poly person to change their strategy to monogamy, if the first hypothesis is not true.
However, there is evidence that hunter gatherer cultures are more egalitarian than agrarian cultures and also more than industrial ones ^^^, and it would also follow that this egalitarianism would extend to sexual satisfaction as well. Sexually frustrated men are more violent ^^^^^. If in addition there is not much competition for resources with neighboring tribes (as was the case throughout most of pre-history), there is not much reason for war. In theory, monogamy could lead to sexual satisfaction, but men are wired for diversity and so it usually doesn't. Polygyny could also lead to sexual satisfaction for men, but it can also lead to only the alpha males getting laid, the other men being frustrated, and unhappy women(which implies unhappy men). The system leading to most sexual satisfaction should be an egalitarian one, combining both polygyny and polyandry, aka polyamory ***. In addition, if people have ego-transcending, intimate, non-sexual experiences on a daily basis by communing either with their tribe members or with nature, sex becomes less important and obsessive.
People often get so immersed in their own culture that they are blinded to the fact that certain things (like monogamy) are not universal and that different cultures see what we consider sacred differently. It is not pleasant then to see a correlation between what we consider sacred and violence (which most of us consider profane). Jealousy may be universal, but its intensity and the way different cultures deal with it are not. For some cultures it doesn't have the emotional intensity that it has for us, and it can be easily diffused^. The old testament on the contrary thought jealousy was an emotion worthy of God.
It's tricky to discuss this with people who believe that monogamy is either a choice they make that represents a sacred expression of their deepest selves or that it is ordained by God. One must tread lightly and with care to not hurt these people. I want to assure you, dear reader, if you are one of those people, that I mean no disrespect to either your deepest core or to God. I recognize that most of us, not just monogamous people, have a deep yearning for a deep love commitment, for someone who will adore us and let us adore them, for someone who will understand our deepest core and will allow us to reciprocate in an environment of safety, for someone who will grow with us and even challenge us spiritually, will stick with us despite our ugly parts and uplift our innate goodness, beauty and truth. And it may be that for some or even most people, such an ambitious goal can only practically be accomplished with one other person at a time, given the short time that we are given in this life, and how our bodies and souls break down with age and just living in a harsh and traumatic world.
Even if all that is true, can we not try to let other relationships have more breathing space, and allow them to seek their own expression, at least once we have gotten through the initial "new relationship energy" with our life partners and we don't feel compelled to spend all our time with them anymore? Can we not try to deal with jealousy within ourselves (with help from our partner) rather than eliminating the possibility of it, or projecting our anger and insecurity onto others? Could jealousy have some value to teach us? I'm not talking only about sexual relationships, but also emotional or intellectual ones. Monogamous people are threatened by the intensity of the connection with others, not just sex per say, though sex can be very intense emotionally and many monogamous people (perhaps more in certain sub-cultures like French, or Yuppie) sometimes are willing to accept their partners having sex without much emotional bonding with others.
Why do we want to encourage good will, generosity, kindness, and consideration (this is an analogy, I'm not saying polyamory encourages these more than monogamy)? Two reasons:
1. They are good for group cohesion and we are creatures that live in groups (even if they are nations or global economies). They are useful, adaptive, selectively advantageous traits for the groups of which we are a part. They sometimes conflict with our more selfish needs, but on the whole the existence of these groups is also good for the individuals in them, even if there are particular discrepancies with traits that are good for the group but not the individuals.
2. There may be a tendency of life for more complexity and integration of disparate parts into wholes, and these qualities encourage that integration. This is what some people might call spiritual growth (or, mistakenly, evolution). Sometimes complexity is not adaptive though, so unless the previous evolutionary condition is met, spiritual growth will probably not happen. Also, sometimes more complexity at one level may be harmful to complexity at lower levels. There might be sweet spots to complexity.
We sometimes encourage people to outgrow narcissistic tendencies, or sociopathic ones that are natural in 2 year olds (but not always^^^^). We usually want the 2 year olds to become more generous, kind and considerate. Not always: some people glorify the greed that drives some people and can have a selective advantage in capitalistic economies (I'm not saying there are not other, more noble motivations for succeeding in capitalism). Another example is in our monogamous tendency to want to be adored by our lovers exclusively and possess and adore them exclusively. There is more to monogamy than that, as mentioned above, but a few psychologists have traced the jealousy and possessiveness to the primary relationship between a mother and her baby, up till 2-3 years*, (and sometimes later, if there are no siblings). As mentioned above, there is also a longing for safety, depth, reliability and spiritual growth, to understand more about one’s own system and the other’s through the relationship, and to build and grow the relationship, which is a higher order system than the 2 people in it.
However, this spiritual longing has not much to do with being able to love other people deeply or have sex with them, except in harsh environments where we just don't have time for such things because we are too busy surviving. People confuse this longing with the reptilian-brain-dominated, narcissistic tendencies of 2 year olds and fail to grow out of it, as we do in other areas of life. We can learn to love other people besides mom, we can learn that mom can love our siblings, and that we are not the center of the world. But unless we can create conditions that encourage higher fitness at the group level for loving more than one lover, it will not happen. There is no selective advantage to polyamory (though there is to polygyny) at the individual level, only at the group level, and only under certain conditions (mentioned below).
Given what I said above, I do not think of monogamy as just a choice that some people can make. I think of it as a currently advantageous adaptation at the group level (though maybe things are changing in certain environments and a certain kind of shallow polyamory is becoming trendy)**, that is spiritually a disaster for most people (but some people may not be able to help it if the "wiring" hypothesis is true, like being gay or straight), unlike some other choices like what clothes to wear or what color to paint the walls, which do not cause much harm either way one chooses. It contributes to unnecessary suffering for everyone, even people who consider themselves monogamous, though they adapt by trying to make meaning out of their suffering. It persists because of the advantages it confers to couples and higher order groups like nations and companies and armies, basically guns, germs, and steel (refer to the book by the same name by J. Diamond). Groups that were/are monogamous (or sometimes polygamous, but only the wealthy men are able to obtain one ore more wives) were also more sexually/emotionally frustrated and tended to be more warlike, as a way to work out sexual frustration, not just through killing, but through rape, and also through camaraderie (guns. There is much about the connection between violence and sexuality which I won't go into here, such as the amygdala being the center of both sexuality and violence especially for males, and the amygdala being more easily activated by disgust in conservatives). They also tended to be more productive (steel), valuing power relationships and productivity over more collaborative and connective relationships, or being able to just relax alone or with friends and lovers. And they would be able to socially isolate into the nuclear family instead of everyone in the tribe being exposed to an epidemic.
Advantages of Polyamory (in the right environment, not the current one)
If the environmental conditions of peace/safety, sufficiency of resources, and smaller scale economies are present, then it is possible that polyamory can have a selective advantage over monogamy. What advantages can polyamory have in such an environment? Mostly about more happiness and joy, which hopefully will make people want to join those groups rather than stay in the miserable groups (but maybe the price would be that we will lose great art because all the miserable, conflicted artists will now be too happy to compensate with art^^). Here are my 12 reasons for polyamory:
If the environmental conditions of peace/safety, sufficiency of resources, and smaller scale economies are present, then it is possible that polyamory can have a selective advantage over monogamy. What advantages can polyamory have in such an environment? Mostly about more happiness and joy, which hopefully will make people want to join those groups rather than stay in the miserable groups (but maybe the price would be that we will lose great art because all the miserable, conflicted artists will now be too happy to compensate with art^^). Here are my 12 reasons for polyamory:
1. Sexuality does not need to die and/or be repressed, especially for older people who can be inspired by younger ones to also be more sexually interested in their primary life partners. For older men this is especially dire, because with their sexuality dying, their testosterone drops and so does their motivation, which can lead to depression. There are examples of other cultures where men used to be able to have sex with younger women, and then when it was taken away by monogamy they became depressed in their old age***.
2. More love and connection can flourish, not expecting one person to fill all our needs. For example what if one falls in love with and is compatible with a life partner in all ways except sexually? intellectually? emotionally?
3. Sensitive men especially do not have to be socially/emotionally isolated with only their primary partners, which is the current situation in monogamous societies. Less sensitive men, which are in the majority, can bond with each other over sports, cars and sexual fantasies. Currently, sensitive men rarely find each other due to their scarcity, and can only bond with other women, but they are prevented from doing so by their partners or cultural norms (even if it's just about an emotional connection). Such men are faced with a Faustian bargain: either be alone, or sell one's soul and at least have deep connection with one person. Women in monogamous relationships, on the contrary usually are able to bond with other women, their children or pets to satisfy their needs for intimate connection with others besides their husbands.
4. Dealing with our childhood abandonment traumas of e.g. losing our mother's primary interest to siblings, disease or other competition, or our adolescent traumas of losing our fathers' time (especially for girls, because the fathers feel sexually uncomfortable with their daughters' emergent sexuality, but in general with fathers who are too busy outside the family either for survival reasons or because they are trying to escape the misery of the nuclear family) can be dealt with instead of repressed or shoved under the rug.
5. Learning that we are not the center of the universe and we can be patient with our lovers.
6. Learning how to self-soothe, and express to our lovers our need for love, sex and connection rather than lashing out in anger or jealousy at them.
5. Learning that we are not the center of the universe and we can be patient with our lovers.
6. Learning how to self-soothe, and express to our lovers our need for love, sex and connection rather than lashing out in anger or jealousy at them.
7. Sexuality can be honored and celebrated as a spiritual force instead of repressed or becoming distorted into anger, control and violence****(yes, I know you monogamists will say that this can be done within monogamous relationships, and to some extent you're right. But I think especially for men who still have a libido, repression and sublimation into productive activities are the ways to deal with sexual energy in a monogamous relationship, though monogamous women would like to believe the fantasy that their men are totally satisfied.)
8. With sex not being repressed and distorted, people can focus on more or equally important things like other forms of love, depth, spiritual growth, community, grief, creativity, good work and building trust. Some things (like food, sex, water) only become obsessive and overly important when they are repressed or when there is a shortage, aka supply and demand. I don't mean to de-sacralize sexuality when making market analogies. Things that are sacred are usually out of the domain of markets. Still market analogies can be helpful for understanding.
9. Women can feel safe in other environments besides at home with their life partner, to not always be on guard against rapists and gossip, or need to focus so much of their energy on being attractive to men (if they're not already partnered).
10. A loyalty based on love can flourish, instead of one based on fear. Coming back to the same primary partner(s) not because of fear of legal repercussions or social sanctions, but out of love for the partner(s).
11. I am going out on a limb on this one, and may be totally off, but in a footnote here, and in a future post I'm going to mention several benefits that may follow if we had a different attitude towards child molestation, and I think this is connected to a polyamorous attitude***.
12. Another market analogy: if we eliminate the monopoly of polyamory over our partner's energy, then friendly competition can improve the primary relationship(s) instead of people being stuck with an inferior behavior pattern. Friendly competition does not mean that we don't have "brand loyalty" to our primary partner(s), they just have more incentive to improve.
Even in environments which are not too harsh, these benefits above may not happen if only the most attractive people get selected for polyamorous relationships (which is what might be happening now with yuppie polyamorists. What about everyone else? they may not get any partners at all). It might take environments that have small tribes where people are selected based on other traits besides sexual attractiveness (which generally correlates with fecundity in women and ability to provide resources in men), or where there is a large variance in what's considered sexually attractive. I don't think the current environment (where people travel to work, are not interdependent with other people they know for their survival and thriving, are part of government and economic structures which are too big to promote interdependence for most people, and are not directly immersed in nature) will result in most of the 12 benefits above.
8. With sex not being repressed and distorted, people can focus on more or equally important things like other forms of love, depth, spiritual growth, community, grief, creativity, good work and building trust. Some things (like food, sex, water) only become obsessive and overly important when they are repressed or when there is a shortage, aka supply and demand. I don't mean to de-sacralize sexuality when making market analogies. Things that are sacred are usually out of the domain of markets. Still market analogies can be helpful for understanding.
9. Women can feel safe in other environments besides at home with their life partner, to not always be on guard against rapists and gossip, or need to focus so much of their energy on being attractive to men (if they're not already partnered).
10. A loyalty based on love can flourish, instead of one based on fear. Coming back to the same primary partner(s) not because of fear of legal repercussions or social sanctions, but out of love for the partner(s).
11. I am going out on a limb on this one, and may be totally off, but in a footnote here, and in a future post I'm going to mention several benefits that may follow if we had a different attitude towards child molestation, and I think this is connected to a polyamorous attitude***.
12. Another market analogy: if we eliminate the monopoly of polyamory over our partner's energy, then friendly competition can improve the primary relationship(s) instead of people being stuck with an inferior behavior pattern. Friendly competition does not mean that we don't have "brand loyalty" to our primary partner(s), they just have more incentive to improve.
Even in environments which are not too harsh, these benefits above may not happen if only the most attractive people get selected for polyamorous relationships (which is what might be happening now with yuppie polyamorists. What about everyone else? they may not get any partners at all). It might take environments that have small tribes where people are selected based on other traits besides sexual attractiveness (which generally correlates with fecundity in women and ability to provide resources in men), or where there is a large variance in what's considered sexually attractive. I don't think the current environment (where people travel to work, are not interdependent with other people they know for their survival and thriving, are part of government and economic structures which are too big to promote interdependence for most people, and are not directly immersed in nature) will result in most of the 12 benefits above.
See this essay for more on the empirical basis of my claims in this paragraphs
Faustian bargains and high cost signals
Sociologists have found that groups sometimes establish commitment and build trust by asking members for "high cost signaling". Examples include genital mutilation, praying towards Mecca 5 times per day, self-flagellation in some medieval monastic orders, saying grace before the meal or reading the whole Hagadah at Passover (even if one is really hungry or thirsty), and sexual exclusivity in monogamous pairs. If this cost was balanced by a benefit to the group, it would be worth it, but the main benefits are in times of war and scarcity as we mentioned above. And the cost is also to both partners' spiritual growth, not just their evolutionary fitness. Why ask for giving up something so sacred as sexuality with others or trying to monopolize it, one of the only transcendent Dyonisian expressions we have left (music and art being two others), and one of the best ways of connecting to other peope's souls and sharing our own? It is similar to asking each other to give up one's joy with others or one's faith. Similar to the jealous monotheistic God, who wants to be worshipped exclusively, coming from the same sort of evolutionary environment and the same sort of traumatized spiritual consciousness. Loving one god does not mean one could not love another god (as in Dionysus and Apollo), or a different aspect of the Deity (as in the father, son and holy spirit). Loving one parent does not mean one could not love another parent. Loving Mozart does not mean one could not love Beethoven (did Einstein actually say that?). The difference between these examples and sexual exclusivity is the trauma associated with sex, both individual and collective (for a better understanding of how sex was used to control people on a larger scale than within monogamous relationships, see ****). Another apt analogy to how monogamous people behave is Gollum from Lord of The Rings who wants the one ring all for himself. Well, maybe not the best analogy, since sexuality it not a tool for a malevolent being that wants to dominate the world, except maybe in some Greco-Christian mythology of Satan. Let's just stick to the utterly selfish infantile behavior of Gollum and his jealousy.
The monogamists try to make it sound like they are making sacrifices in order to keep their relationship special and have more depth. I have not seen one monogamous relationship of more than 10 years where the people are happy in their relationship. Whereas there are a few cultures that encourage polyamory that seem happy. Happy polyamory within this late stage western Faustian (to use Oswald Spengler's term) culture also is hard to achieve for the reasons above, though supposedly some people do achieve it (*** and ****). The people who think they are monogamous also say things like: it's hard enough to make a relationship work with just 2 people, so how do you think limited humans can make it work with more than 2? That's like saying we should have a body with only 2 cells. Part of the REASON it's hard with 2 people is because of the social isolation of the nuclear family. Tribal cultures tend to be polyamorous and happier than us. For sure we are limited, but there are synergies of having more people whom one is emotionally (and/or sexually) intimate with, that can help ease those limitations. And it may still be that for most people, a certain level of depth and commitment is only possible with one other. Even in those cases, what if one person has only enough energy for 1 other person at a certain level of depth, while their partner has energy for 2 people at that level of depth? Why should the first person forbid the second from living up to their full potential?
Gender issues
I hypothesize that besides the ugly (and somewhat false, because it ignores group selection) standard explanation for monogamy, i.e. individual selection for such traits as promiscuous cheating and novelty seeking in men and seeking to suck out and monopolize men's energy and resources by conniving women (** and ***) there is the issue of safety. Cultures that are relatively peaceful with a sense of village or tribal belonging tend to be polyamorous, while more individualistic and violent cultures tend to be more monogamous (and this seems to be true of our closest primate relatives as well, the Bonobos and Chimps). So it's not that women are naturally more monogamous, but that in our culture women don't feel safe and monogamy is one strategy for increasing safety. Not just the safety of more resources, but of being protected by the husband from predatory men (the predations of the husband can usually be tolerated in exchange for all the other safety benefits). It used to be that women needed men for other forms of protection, from wild beasts, from marauding tribes, from hunger.... The dangers have changed, men are not needed in the same way, and yet there is still something in the feminine psyche that longs for that protection and sense of safety and being provided for in the form of a masculine partner. But then by that argument, more male partners would offer more safety. Unless male competition prevented more than one male partner at a time. Except that male competition is not as effective as sperm competition as a selection mechanism,at least in tribal environments. So more research is needed to figure out these matters.
Conversely, men generally need more variety in sex (for evolutionary reasons) and males of most species seem to need more adventure (not just in sex) than women/females, which is traded off with safety. Hopefully the variety and adventure offered in polyamory is sufficient for men, though of course they will seek out variety and adventure in other areas of life. Perhaps one upside to monogamy is that men learn the art of sexual sublimation, channeling sexual energy into other creative endeavors. Except sometimes they are just violent, not at all creative.
The cozy safety of the primary relationship: if we could really trust each other, we wouldn't need monogamy to guarantee that we won't leave each other for another person, or not care about each other if we feel like we need more energy from our partner due to their energy being spent on someone else. But it's easier to just be monogamous and not deal with such vulnerabilities.
I already mentioned that women can usually find other women to get their need for non-sexual intimacy outside of a monogamous relationship met, whereas sensitive men are more rare, and there are also taboos around it, so they will not generally find other sensitive men to get their intimacy.
Women might also generally be able to turn off sexual feelings outside the monogamous relationship. Though once they feel a deep connection with a man who is also attractive, they are just as pained by not being able to have sex with him as men are by the converse situation.
Boundaries
In polyamory there is no automatic boundary (enforced not only through verbal and written social norms, but through physical things like rings). It is even more important to be able to say no to either sexual or emotional advances with polyamory than with monogamy though. And if sex and intimacy are not scarce, then saying no is not the end of the world, shattering someone's ego. Saying yes might also be easier, even if it's to someone who is not physically appealing, because one knows that this is not a prison (or "crucible" in mono-euphemistic speak) and showing love and kindness to one person in one way, does not prevent us from showing it in other ways to other people.
How monogamy is maintained
I mentioned some of the evolutionary causes for monogamy. But what are the proximal causes? Obviously there are many cultural pressures from family, church, law, school, media and gossip to encourage people to be jealous, to think jealousy is good and a sign of true love, to think that there are no ethical alternatives to monogamy, and to think that anything else leads to tragedy. But there is something even more powerful that I learned about recently *****. This is the so-called "one source imprint" that happens to babies in monogamous cultures, where the main source of love and safety is from the mother, as opposed to in polyamorous cultures, where it is from the clan or village. In the adult's mind there now is an association between safety and sex with only one person. There are probably strong neuro-hormonal signals (e.g. oxytocin and dopamine) that reinforce this association. I'd love to see some research about it. There is also the possibility that the one source imprint happens earlier, in utero, in which case there is nothing we can do about changing it. But I doubt it, since then how could some people be polyamorous? It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between polyamory and an early childhood which involved being raised by multiple people. So one early caretaker produces monogamy, more than one produces polyamory, but It could be that having less than one early caretaker can produce either monogamy or polyamorous people (not only monogamous ones) who are unhealthy (unable to make commitments and love deeply)
Hope for the future
Many years from now I hope people will look back at monogamy as they look back at slavery, patriarchy (I know some folks think patriarchy is still a thing in western cultures, I think it's mostly vestigial in those cultures, though the 0.01% alpha males still have much power, but we won't get into that here), global industrialism or genocide, shake their heads and think: "how could people not only have tolerated, but ennobled monogamy?" How could people think that acting like 2 year olds was a good thing? How could they confuse the need for depth, safety and reliability with sexual or emotional exclusivity? And the answer is the same as for other mass human tragedies: they could because they were human, with all their fears and traumas and immaturities (some of which became hardwired into their brains early on), and because there was a time when evolution rewarded those things, in order to survive. Yes, I think for most people today, monogamy is still a better deal than polyamory, and it might take suffering for a few pioneers in order to change this.
Footnote
* I don't know much about child molestation (but see here), except I've had two girlfriends who were molested as young girls (and were traumatized by it into adulthood). I hope I don't incur the wrath of those who wake up the dragons of their society's taboos. But I think that if we were able to be polyamorous then much less children would get molested. I think men who can have good, connective, intimate sex with women, would not be as attracted to children. And even if they were, they wouldn't feel compelled to act on it. The very nature of a taboo makes it more alluring for some people. Also, even if a child were molested in a polyamorous society, they would get less messed up by it than in our culture, because our culture does not offer much healing for such things (for both the children and the molesters). Instead, as with most taboos, people either don't talk about it, or use it to project their shadows onto the molesters, scapegoating them and expressing pent up anger and violence towards them. Also, there would be less false accusations destroying people's lives who didn't do anything if there was no taboo around child molestation, but instead there was information on how harmful non-consensual sex (children can't really consent to sex since they don't understand it) can be for someone, and how children need to psychologically differentiate, which sex goes against, messing up their psychological development. If we had this attitude towards child molestation, it would be safe for men to express affection towards children(in a non-sexual way), who are naturally very affectionate and are hurt and confused when men rebuff their natural tendencies for affection. OK, I just watched the Hunt, with Mads Mikkelsen (so I am a bit shook up over this). And a good friend of mine (who was molested as a young boy) is falling for conspiracy theories about child molesters being the root of everything that's wrong, as well as the target of a covert operation by Trump, using COVID-19 as an excuse to arrest all the alleged molesters in Hollywood, as well as the Pope and hundreds of Cardinals (well, at least that last part has SOME basis in reality, given what was found out about the Catholic Church. But the repression of sexuality in the Catholic Church just supports my hypothesis). And my friend is not alone! So many people are going for this insanity! Where does it go next? Epstein and Weinstein were Jews! Aha! It's the Jews as scapegoats again! Not only are they disproportionately represented in the 1% and the liberals, but "they" are also the child molesters! The right and left can at last unify over this. Q.E.D. I also have a friend who spent 9 months in a horrible jail and now is black listed because he downloaded some free child porn (he would never molest anyone). The punishment is brutal and incommensurate with the crime. And someone I know from an intentional community also had his life ruined probably due to false accusations. So maybe I also have my scapegoat (monogamy), though as far as I am aware my critique is rationally based, not trauma-based. OK, end of self-disclosure and attempt at humor (I am jewish, btw, for those who don't know me)...And then there is the possibility that taboos actually serve a protective function for groups, preventing their disintegration, and that their violation elicits a sort of immune response. I hypothesize that in a polyamorous society, the taboo against child molestation would not be necessary, as there would be much lower incentive for molestation, and even if it happened, it would not destroy the family, tribe, village of nation, because it would be dealt with in a better way that offered healing for both the victims and perpetrators.
Sociologists have found that groups sometimes establish commitment and build trust by asking members for "high cost signaling". Examples include genital mutilation, praying towards Mecca 5 times per day, self-flagellation in some medieval monastic orders, saying grace before the meal or reading the whole Hagadah at Passover (even if one is really hungry or thirsty), and sexual exclusivity in monogamous pairs. If this cost was balanced by a benefit to the group, it would be worth it, but the main benefits are in times of war and scarcity as we mentioned above. And the cost is also to both partners' spiritual growth, not just their evolutionary fitness. Why ask for giving up something so sacred as sexuality with others or trying to monopolize it, one of the only transcendent Dyonisian expressions we have left (music and art being two others), and one of the best ways of connecting to other peope's souls and sharing our own? It is similar to asking each other to give up one's joy with others or one's faith. Similar to the jealous monotheistic God, who wants to be worshipped exclusively, coming from the same sort of evolutionary environment and the same sort of traumatized spiritual consciousness. Loving one god does not mean one could not love another god (as in Dionysus and Apollo), or a different aspect of the Deity (as in the father, son and holy spirit). Loving one parent does not mean one could not love another parent. Loving Mozart does not mean one could not love Beethoven (did Einstein actually say that?). The difference between these examples and sexual exclusivity is the trauma associated with sex, both individual and collective (for a better understanding of how sex was used to control people on a larger scale than within monogamous relationships, see ****). Another apt analogy to how monogamous people behave is Gollum from Lord of The Rings who wants the one ring all for himself. Well, maybe not the best analogy, since sexuality it not a tool for a malevolent being that wants to dominate the world, except maybe in some Greco-Christian mythology of Satan. Let's just stick to the utterly selfish infantile behavior of Gollum and his jealousy.
The monogamists try to make it sound like they are making sacrifices in order to keep their relationship special and have more depth. I have not seen one monogamous relationship of more than 10 years where the people are happy in their relationship. Whereas there are a few cultures that encourage polyamory that seem happy. Happy polyamory within this late stage western Faustian (to use Oswald Spengler's term) culture also is hard to achieve for the reasons above, though supposedly some people do achieve it (*** and ****). The people who think they are monogamous also say things like: it's hard enough to make a relationship work with just 2 people, so how do you think limited humans can make it work with more than 2? That's like saying we should have a body with only 2 cells. Part of the REASON it's hard with 2 people is because of the social isolation of the nuclear family. Tribal cultures tend to be polyamorous and happier than us. For sure we are limited, but there are synergies of having more people whom one is emotionally (and/or sexually) intimate with, that can help ease those limitations. And it may still be that for most people, a certain level of depth and commitment is only possible with one other. Even in those cases, what if one person has only enough energy for 1 other person at a certain level of depth, while their partner has energy for 2 people at that level of depth? Why should the first person forbid the second from living up to their full potential?
Gender issues
I hypothesize that besides the ugly (and somewhat false, because it ignores group selection) standard explanation for monogamy, i.e. individual selection for such traits as promiscuous cheating and novelty seeking in men and seeking to suck out and monopolize men's energy and resources by conniving women (** and ***) there is the issue of safety. Cultures that are relatively peaceful with a sense of village or tribal belonging tend to be polyamorous, while more individualistic and violent cultures tend to be more monogamous (and this seems to be true of our closest primate relatives as well, the Bonobos and Chimps). So it's not that women are naturally more monogamous, but that in our culture women don't feel safe and monogamy is one strategy for increasing safety. Not just the safety of more resources, but of being protected by the husband from predatory men (the predations of the husband can usually be tolerated in exchange for all the other safety benefits). It used to be that women needed men for other forms of protection, from wild beasts, from marauding tribes, from hunger.... The dangers have changed, men are not needed in the same way, and yet there is still something in the feminine psyche that longs for that protection and sense of safety and being provided for in the form of a masculine partner. But then by that argument, more male partners would offer more safety. Unless male competition prevented more than one male partner at a time. Except that male competition is not as effective as sperm competition as a selection mechanism,at least in tribal environments. So more research is needed to figure out these matters.
Conversely, men generally need more variety in sex (for evolutionary reasons) and males of most species seem to need more adventure (not just in sex) than women/females, which is traded off with safety. Hopefully the variety and adventure offered in polyamory is sufficient for men, though of course they will seek out variety and adventure in other areas of life. Perhaps one upside to monogamy is that men learn the art of sexual sublimation, channeling sexual energy into other creative endeavors. Except sometimes they are just violent, not at all creative.
The cozy safety of the primary relationship: if we could really trust each other, we wouldn't need monogamy to guarantee that we won't leave each other for another person, or not care about each other if we feel like we need more energy from our partner due to their energy being spent on someone else. But it's easier to just be monogamous and not deal with such vulnerabilities.
I already mentioned that women can usually find other women to get their need for non-sexual intimacy outside of a monogamous relationship met, whereas sensitive men are more rare, and there are also taboos around it, so they will not generally find other sensitive men to get their intimacy.
Women might also generally be able to turn off sexual feelings outside the monogamous relationship. Though once they feel a deep connection with a man who is also attractive, they are just as pained by not being able to have sex with him as men are by the converse situation.
Boundaries
In polyamory there is no automatic boundary (enforced not only through verbal and written social norms, but through physical things like rings). It is even more important to be able to say no to either sexual or emotional advances with polyamory than with monogamy though. And if sex and intimacy are not scarce, then saying no is not the end of the world, shattering someone's ego. Saying yes might also be easier, even if it's to someone who is not physically appealing, because one knows that this is not a prison (or "crucible" in mono-euphemistic speak) and showing love and kindness to one person in one way, does not prevent us from showing it in other ways to other people.
How monogamy is maintained
I mentioned some of the evolutionary causes for monogamy. But what are the proximal causes? Obviously there are many cultural pressures from family, church, law, school, media and gossip to encourage people to be jealous, to think jealousy is good and a sign of true love, to think that there are no ethical alternatives to monogamy, and to think that anything else leads to tragedy. But there is something even more powerful that I learned about recently *****. This is the so-called "one source imprint" that happens to babies in monogamous cultures, where the main source of love and safety is from the mother, as opposed to in polyamorous cultures, where it is from the clan or village. In the adult's mind there now is an association between safety and sex with only one person. There are probably strong neuro-hormonal signals (e.g. oxytocin and dopamine) that reinforce this association. I'd love to see some research about it. There is also the possibility that the one source imprint happens earlier, in utero, in which case there is nothing we can do about changing it. But I doubt it, since then how could some people be polyamorous? It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between polyamory and an early childhood which involved being raised by multiple people. So one early caretaker produces monogamy, more than one produces polyamory, but It could be that having less than one early caretaker can produce either monogamy or polyamorous people (not only monogamous ones) who are unhealthy (unable to make commitments and love deeply)
Hope for the future
Many years from now I hope people will look back at monogamy as they look back at slavery, patriarchy (I know some folks think patriarchy is still a thing in western cultures, I think it's mostly vestigial in those cultures, though the 0.01% alpha males still have much power, but we won't get into that here), global industrialism or genocide, shake their heads and think: "how could people not only have tolerated, but ennobled monogamy?" How could people think that acting like 2 year olds was a good thing? How could they confuse the need for depth, safety and reliability with sexual or emotional exclusivity? And the answer is the same as for other mass human tragedies: they could because they were human, with all their fears and traumas and immaturities (some of which became hardwired into their brains early on), and because there was a time when evolution rewarded those things, in order to survive. Yes, I think for most people today, monogamy is still a better deal than polyamory, and it might take suffering for a few pioneers in order to change this.
Footnote
* I don't know much about child molestation (but see here), except I've had two girlfriends who were molested as young girls (and were traumatized by it into adulthood). I hope I don't incur the wrath of those who wake up the dragons of their society's taboos. But I think that if we were able to be polyamorous then much less children would get molested. I think men who can have good, connective, intimate sex with women, would not be as attracted to children. And even if they were, they wouldn't feel compelled to act on it. The very nature of a taboo makes it more alluring for some people. Also, even if a child were molested in a polyamorous society, they would get less messed up by it than in our culture, because our culture does not offer much healing for such things (for both the children and the molesters). Instead, as with most taboos, people either don't talk about it, or use it to project their shadows onto the molesters, scapegoating them and expressing pent up anger and violence towards them. Also, there would be less false accusations destroying people's lives who didn't do anything if there was no taboo around child molestation, but instead there was information on how harmful non-consensual sex (children can't really consent to sex since they don't understand it) can be for someone, and how children need to psychologically differentiate, which sex goes against, messing up their psychological development. If we had this attitude towards child molestation, it would be safe for men to express affection towards children(in a non-sexual way), who are naturally very affectionate and are hurt and confused when men rebuff their natural tendencies for affection. OK, I just watched the Hunt, with Mads Mikkelsen (so I am a bit shook up over this). And a good friend of mine (who was molested as a young boy) is falling for conspiracy theories about child molesters being the root of everything that's wrong, as well as the target of a covert operation by Trump, using COVID-19 as an excuse to arrest all the alleged molesters in Hollywood, as well as the Pope and hundreds of Cardinals (well, at least that last part has SOME basis in reality, given what was found out about the Catholic Church. But the repression of sexuality in the Catholic Church just supports my hypothesis). And my friend is not alone! So many people are going for this insanity! Where does it go next? Epstein and Weinstein were Jews! Aha! It's the Jews as scapegoats again! Not only are they disproportionately represented in the 1% and the liberals, but "they" are also the child molesters! The right and left can at last unify over this. Q.E.D. I also have a friend who spent 9 months in a horrible jail and now is black listed because he downloaded some free child porn (he would never molest anyone). The punishment is brutal and incommensurate with the crime. And someone I know from an intentional community also had his life ruined probably due to false accusations. So maybe I also have my scapegoat (monogamy), though as far as I am aware my critique is rationally based, not trauma-based. OK, end of self-disclosure and attempt at humor (I am jewish, btw, for those who don't know me)...And then there is the possibility that taboos actually serve a protective function for groups, preventing their disintegration, and that their violation elicits a sort of immune response. I hypothesize that in a polyamorous society, the taboo against child molestation would not be necessary, as there would be much lower incentive for molestation, and even if it happened, it would not destroy the family, tribe, village of nation, because it would be dealt with in a better way that offered healing for both the victims and perpetrators.
References
^ https://ffrf.org/outreach/
^^ There are other motivations for art besides the need for thwarted self-expression. See https://www.ecosophia.net/
^^^ Ian Morris, in Foragers, Farmers and Fossil Fuels.
^^^^https://www.haaretz.com/life/.premium.MAGAZINE-polyamory-a-product-of-deprivation-or-a-cure-for-a-monogamous-rut-1.5422186 where the author not only seems to encourage narcissism but suggests that polyamory can be a personality disorder when one is not treated as the center of the universe in childhood and hence does not feel like they deserve to be narcissistic in adulthood, or else has masochistic tendencies to deny themselves the narcissism they should be entitled to.
^^^^^ https://medium.com/@radoje.cerovic/the-history-of-violence-beyond-pinker-the-better-archangels-of-our-nature-50786fe627f2,
https://medium.com/@radoje.cerovic/the-history-of-violence-ii-half-naked-goddesses-and-margaret-thatcher-affb8b3aa53d
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/pdf/rstb20110290.pdf
^^ There are other motivations for art besides the need for thwarted self-expression. See https://www.ecosophia.net/
^^^ Ian Morris, in Foragers, Farmers and Fossil Fuels.
^^^^https://www.haaretz.com/life/.premium.MAGAZINE-polyamory-a-product-of-deprivation-or-a-cure-for-a-monogamous-rut-1.5422186 where the author not only seems to encourage narcissism but suggests that polyamory can be a personality disorder when one is not treated as the center of the universe in childhood and hence does not feel like they deserve to be narcissistic in adulthood, or else has masochistic tendencies to deny themselves the narcissism they should be entitled to.
^^^^^ https://medium.com/@radoje.cerovic/the-history-of-violence-beyond-pinker-the-better-archangels-of-our-nature-50786fe627f2,
https://medium.com/@radoje.cerovic/the-history-of-violence-ii-half-naked-goddesses-and-margaret-thatcher-affb8b3aa53d
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/pdf/rstb20110290.pdf
* Stephen Snyder, in Love Worth Making: How to Have Ridiculously Great Sex in a Long-Lasting Relationship, explains this as the 2 year-old-narcissistic-tendency of the "sexual self" (I think reptilian brain), and the Freudian psychologist Leo Bersani talks about this in his article Against Monogamy. Erich Fromm also hints that monogamous love is immature in The Art of Loving, an "egotism for two".
** At the individual level, some people have tried to explain monogamy in terms of advantages to individual males' genes, but the relative importance of those explanations can be at least reduced, because group fitness is at least equally important as individual fitness and for other reasons having to do with even lower level competition than individual males, e.g. sperm competition, see for example my comment on Brett Weinstein's talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg7iBAgMT5Y&lc=Ugz8yJya2_NZTqbQbWR4AaABAg
*** Sex At Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. They give examples of many societies that are polyamorous. The archaeological data is consistent with warlike tribes (the ones where the men are not all sexually satisfied?) massacring more peaceful tribes, and warlike tribes being sedentary and having scarce resources to fight over, but I don't think we can know for sure whether they were monogamous, polygynous or polyamorous. The more recent ethnographic data needs to be analyzed, paying close attention to those people defending from western encroachment. The most warlike People in Keeley's (and Pinker's) charts turn out not to be hunter gatherers at all, but sendentary, monogamous or polygynous patriarchal horticulturists. This is data begging to be analyzed. Here is a first qualitative try.
**** And They Knew Each Other by the founders of Tamera, for a perspective on this
***** True Human Freedom by Ano Hanamana.
***** True Human Freedom by Ano Hanamana.
No comments:
Post a Comment