Is monogamy becoming an underrated value in our society?

[Beet]

I voted yes, but I think fezzy is correct.

There are winners and losers in this change, and I am/would be (a non-conventionally attractive male) one of the losers.

I also fear polygamy because I think it'll lead to a lot of single-wealthy/powerful male : multiple female relationships, and I think this'll merely reinforce and strengthen social hierarchies. In a truly post-patriarchal / post-materialist society there would be nothing wrong with polygamous relationships except for practical difficulties (e.g., who gets what in divorce) but the older I get, the farther I perceive our society from being to that ideal, and I simply fear that polygamy will be abused and become the marketization of personal relationships. If I live until my 60s I fear I'll be one of those old fogies analogous to those older people today who cling to opposition to gay marriage.

But it's also a good point that forcing previously established conventions to continue when the socio-economic basis for them is eroded is difficult. The established pattern of these things tend to be that they are judged on their own terms, so polygamy will probably gradually become popular, and those of us that see major problems in the implications and abuse of the practice will just have another weight on our shoulders to reform the 'new' system and make it more just and humane.

[Beet]

Girls are the worst when it comes to this. They all want to love a story like The Notebook or whatever, and if that doesn't happen, they grow flaky. Part of the reason my ex and I broke up after 2 and a half years was distance and because her perfect love story was falling apart. She did not want to work on it or try to work through the distance, which was temporary, and instead just wanted to end it.

That fits in with what women have told me, I find they're more likely to have the following order of preference:
Be with someone they're crazy about > be alone for life > "settle" for someone

Men, I find, tend to be less picky.

[Beet]

Girls are the worst when it comes to this. They all want to love a story like The Notebook or whatever, and if that doesn't happen, they grow flaky. Part of the reason my ex and I broke up after 2 and a half years was distance and because her perfect love story was falling apart. She did not want to work on it or try to work through the distance, which was temporary, and instead just wanted to end it.

That fits in with what women have told me, I find they're more likely to have the following order of preference:
Be with someone they're crazy about > be alone for life > "settle" for someone

Is that really wrong though? To me, "settling" seems like the worst of both worlds, the loss of freedom and independence of a relationship without the closeness and emotional connection of one. I look at my parents, for example, who were "married" only in the sense that they owned their house jointly and filed taxes together, but never showed any real love for each other, slept in separate beds, etc. That sounds like hell to me personally. I think the order of preferences you gave is the most rational, unless you have a strong desire to have children, stronger than your romantic desires, and you don't want to have to deal with the problems of single parenthood (not that there's anything wrong with being a single parent, but it's a lot of work). Since I don't even want kids, that doesn't apply to me.

Well, there's nothing really wrong with it. Although (here comes the 'but') I suppose in an earlier time it would have been termed 'selfish'. As people then did get married and did have children simply because they were expected to, and they didn't have so many choices. The arranged marriage, the idea of love growing with time, the idea of commitment, and so on. Having children, initially, is a sacrifice for the continuation and growth of the community. It isn't really supposed to make yourself happier at first.

[Beet]

Well yes, it all has to do with the separation of the family from the economic unit. Before, the family was more than just something private; it was an enterprise. If your dad was a weaver, than you were likely to be a weaver, too, and likely inherit your dad's business. Today, you are likely to go off to university and study sociology. The result is something of a collective-action problem with regard to reproduction. Society needs children, but individuals don't gain as much from them as they used to. The nuclear family was a half-way house on this path. But yes, it is silly to say that the biological parents must be the caregivers.

[Beet]

Sex is not a necessity of life, opebo.

Also, there's a difference between moral beliefs and ideals, and sexual kinks or preferences.

[Beet]

Well, it is certainly one of the basics, and, for most people, a necessity in order to live in a way that could be seen as better than a bare, miserable survival...

For most, but not all. Particularly, not to the one you were addressing, so a rather glaring mistake on your part. I mean, most people would be miserable without access to heterosexual sex, yet heterosexual sex is not considered a necessity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all; man is more than just a hedonistic creature. There is a thing called moral values, and although it is certainly something that people select, it is qualitatively different from whether you take your tea with or without sugar.

[Beet]

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

Ha. I doubt that even you believe that, although admitting it would be tantamount to the death of opebo.

[Beet]

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

Ha. I doubt that even you believe that, although admitting it would be tantamount to the death of opebo.

I absolutely do think that way, Beet.  It isn't a matter of 'belief' it is a matter of skepticism.

Ah, hiding behind skepticism of the idea that there are higher joys and values than hedonism. You are quite mistaken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I understand it, Nathan doesn't even tend his own garden!  Nathan, chime in if you read this - is it true you don't even prune your own vine?
[/quote]

I'll bite. There you go flaunting your bigotry. You clearly have disdain for his identity, which he isn't obligated to respond to in the least.

[Beet]

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

And for those in whom they do exist, they are qualitatively different; they are experienced differently as a class than what you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slut-shaming is making women feeling guilty about violating traditional gender expectations; it is based on the double standard between men and women. Saying someone has too much sex drive is not inherently slut-shaming (not that I agree with it, necessarily). On the other hand, you seem to have no problem with opebo's acephobia.

[Beet]

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

And for those in whom they do exist, they are qualitatively different; they are experienced differently as a class than what you know.

Yes, precisely - an absolutely subjective preference.

Well yes, morality is subjective, but it is still experienced differently than hedonism. That doesn't mean that arguments for or against monogamy can be dismissed simply because morality is part of where the speaker is coming from. In fact, the very notion that all subjective preferences are morally equal or neutral, is itself a moral judgment.

[Beet]

Well all thoughts are figments opebo, including your lust. You are getting quite profound aren't you?

As for how 'moral' sentiments are experienced differently than hedonism, to begin with, I experience them differently. Hedonism gives me a more immediate form of pleasure that dissipates quickly, whereas moral pleasure (or pain) lasts long after particular event(s) that caused it. That's not the only difference between them, but that's one example.

[Beet]

As for how 'moral' sentiments are experienced differently than hedonism, to begin with, I experience them differently. Hedonism gives me a more immediate form of pleasure that dissipates quickly, whereas moral pleasure (or pain) lasts long after particular event(s) that caused it.

Are you sure you're not just concerned with what other people think of you or how they might punish or reward you?

Yes, there's certainly some of that. Then again, reward me with what? Approval? I'd argue that's a different form of pleasure than hedonism- knowing that one is approved of, loved, and in good standing. Certainly. But there are people that I genuinely care about too, and would sacrifice a great deal of my life for. I wouldn't say punishment and reward vs. other-regard are entirely mutually exclusive. Those that I care about most, are also those whose opinions matter the most.

[Beet]

I'm not a fearful kid and I'm not an experienced adult. I'm a senior in college and have had ample time to decide whether or not I want to participate in certain aspects of the culture around me. My disapproval of promiscuity and the commodification of sex are certainly in some sense related to my personal distaste for the subject matter, but I assure you that I have considerably more stringent standards for my own decorum than those that I'm foisting, or attempting to foist, on opebo.

It doesn't bother me if you don't want to have sex, but this whole thing smacks of judgment and ignorance. Sex isn't a cultural phenomenon, it's a basic human instinct. Shaming people for performing a pleasurable act they naturally enjoy is childish. As is making the decision at 21 or so that you know for a fact you have a distaste for sex. If you happen not to have enjoyed it, that's fine and I have no problem with that. When it turns to being framed as a life decision you seem to feel superior for making, I find that wildly offensive. But I don't think that's what it is either, polnut hit it on the head. And the difference is that I'm not trying to make you feel bad for it, it's a totally understandable position to be in. My suggestion is to just not go making grand proclamations when I guarantee you'll feel differently about it when you find a girl you really like or suffer a lapse in judgment and submit to a fling with a crush or whatever.

Your post is what smacks of judgment and ignorance. The statement "sex...it's a basic human instinct". So since I don't have an instinct towards sex, does that mean I'm not human? Or are you saying you know me better than I know myself? How is that not incredibly judging and presumptuous? "As is making the decision at 21 or so that you know for a fact you have a distaste for sex". Again. You said you assign no judgment to anyone's sexuality, but you feel free to judge asexuality. Yes, I know for a fact that I have no sexual desire (not the same thing as a distaste for sex, but it's possible to know that you have a distaste for something without trying it. For instance, how do you feel about being defecated on? in the face?). "When it turns to being framed as a life decision you seem to feel superior for making," who here feels superior, exactly? "My suggestion is to just not go making grand proclamations when I guarantee you'll feel differently about it when you find a girl you really like or suffer a lapse in judgment and submit to a fling with a crush or whatever." If I really like a girl, it'll be someone who has no problems accepting me for who I am, not someone like you who assumes that I'd be a completely different person if I had a crush. It's not about a lapse in judgment... asexuality has nothing to do with one's judgment or one's moral values.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, but you do seem to have expressed some views. That's was eliciting a response. The things that you've said, here. See the specific quotes above. If they've been misinterpreted then I'll be very relieved.

[Beet]

Stop trying to create an issue where there isn't one. I don't appreciate being mischaracterized.

Your not being mischaracterized. You're erasing and shaming people who don't enjoy sex without even seeming to realize it, even after being called out for it repeatedly.

[Beet]

Sex when you're in lovewith a woman is the best thing. I couldn't imagine anyone not liking it or holding their same ahomosexual views once they experience such a thing.

Exactly. When did things cease to exist just because you can't imagine them, personally?

[Beet]

This thread makes me embarrassed for everyone posting in it. Scott should mercy lock it. Also, how old is Nathan?

That's funny; it went downhill after you started posting in it.

[Beet]

It's based on biology, dude. You may not be attracted to other people, but sexual arousal happens in one way or another whether you like it or not. I don't care who wants to be asexual or for what reason, but it's a choice not a sexual orientation regardless of whether you're attracted to other people or not. Comparing it to heterosexuality and homosexuality is ridiculous and attacking people for acknowledging biology is obnoxious.

Uh, not all people have experienced sexual arousal, and you can't say for certain that they ever will, but even if all people everywhere must experience it, it has nothing to do with asexuality. Arousal is not the same as sexual desire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not attracted to other people, how is that a choice?

[Beet]

But like I said at the beginning and others have said, considering the extreme rarity of it and its past on the forum, biology is highly unlikely to be playing a role in this. Behavior, social fears, etc are what I believe to be the causes. The faux outrage is also very much a factor in that belief.

Social fears are far too widespread to explain asexuality, as pretty much the vast majority of people get them at one point or another. If that was a sufficient cause, then a lot more than 1% of the population would identify as asexual.

Speaking for myself, although I have always been asexual, I did not consciously identify as such until recently because I did not know this concept existed and what exactly it meant. I knew I was different, but I never had a word to describe it, so I never brought it up and tried to blend in when I could. Does that make sense?

[Beet]

I don't think social fears make everyone afraid of sex, just some people.

Again, asexuality is not 'fear of sex'. We are not discussing that. If some teenagers you know have sworn off sex, that's a choice of theirs and has nothing to do with asexuality unless they've explicitly stated that they are asexual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the point of labelling yourself sexual, heterosexual or homosexual?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am rolling with it casually; I'm also asexual. I don't see these two as being mutually exclusive. You're acting as if I'm written my asexuality on a stone tablet, when instead all I'm doing is observing a fact about myself. I do think there's some value to proclaiming it openly and correcting misconceptions about it, as a concept, because there seems to be a lot of it floating around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who sex said sexuality was shameful? Not anyone that I could see. P.S. I don't think that you've lurched into an 'all-out' assault on anything.

[Beet]

Am I typing in another language? In my eyes I pretty clearly differentiated between actual asexuality and those who proclaim it, a la those in the past on this forum I have repeatedly mentioned, out of social fears. That's the precise point I started from when I came in to respond to the entire thread being devoted to shaming sexuality. Nathan is the one I was referring to, not you. He's the sole reason I posted in this thread, not you. Calling sexual activity perverse repeatedly is pretty akin to calling it shameful, but I apologize for not being perfectly explicit in my wording. This thread is driving me insane.

You made some statements that seemed general, but if you were just talking about Nathan, I'm sorry if I over-interpreted you. I don't know Nathan well enough to judge all of your characterizations... but I do agree with you that there should be nothing shameful about sexuality. For what it's worth, I read him as saying opebo's (and perhaps Torie's) particular method of seeking sexual activity he finds perverse, not all sexuality, but I could be wrong about that.

[Beet]

Now Torie just needs to swap his body for a small Asian female.