Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Just to be clear here, polyamory is different from polygamy

Olaz said: Just to be clear here, polyamory is different from polygamy

True, since generally held to be gender egalitarian and non-primary relationships are more developed than in swinger culture.

James_0011 wrote:@Ego

Have you ever read "Sex at dawn" by Christopher Ryan? He argues that humans are naturally polygamous, and that culture creates monogamy.

how is human behavior minus culture natural? can these be separated?

7Wannabe5 wrote:Why should it only be possible to partner or collaborate with a number of people in any sort of creative work besides relationship work?

This really does get to the nub of the problem, doesn't it? Why can people cooperate so well in groups to accomplish a wide variety of projects but multi-partner cooperation falls apart in intimate lifelong relationships? I don't know the answer. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that intimate relationships have an inherent prisoner's dilemma and multi-partner cooperation is more fragile and prone to degenerating into zero-sum. Once a relationship becomes zero-sum it is usually doomed to failure.

James_0011 wrote:@Ego

Have you ever read "Sex at dawn" by Christopher Ryan? He argues that humans are naturally polygamous, and that culture creates monogamy.

I have not, though it does not surprise me. It brings to mind cultures that permit or encourage polyamory. They are not the cultures one would describe as forward-thinking or evolved.

Ego said: This really does get to the nub of the problem, doesn't it? Why can people cooperate so well in groups to accomplish a wide variety of projects but multi-partner cooperation falls apart in intimate lifelong relationships? I don't know the answer. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that intimate relationships have an inherent prisoner's dilemma and multi-partner cooperation is more fragile and prone to degenerating into zero-sum. Once a relationship becomes zero-sum it is usually doomed to failure.

Do people generally cooperate well in groups at the level of art? Musical bands, for instance, are notorious for drama and bad break-ups. Business partnerships not super-stable either, and I am struggling to imagine a truly 3-way egalitarian business partnership. It is also my understanding that coaches are constantly having to promote team goals over individual ego or accomplishment, especially at the highest levels of performance.

"People person" and "artist" don't usually go together in my experience, but if you imagine taking the skill of being a "people person" to the level of art, then the person who achieved that might be polyamorous. I like variety, but I quickly tire in the role of "manager" and I suck at empathetic listening, so it is easier for me to just default to monogamy. It has been my observation that even in most egalitarian monogamous couples, one individual in the duo is usually taking on most of the management functions, and that individual is the one who is most invested in the relationship, while the other partner is the one who is most dependent on the relationship.

@Ego

I mean non monogamous in the bonobo sense, I.e. Everyone in the tribe has open sexual relations with each other, not non monogamous in the Mormon sense where one man controls multiple wives.

The bonobos are the closest example we have of egalitarian ( or "evolved") human culture (even though they are monkeys but I think you get my point) and a distinct feature of their culture is non monogamy. The chimpanzees on the other hand are more similiar to modern humans in that they have a hierarchy and are essentially a war culture, Chris Ryan argues that this power driven culture is related to controlling female sexuality through monogamy.

@brute

Yeah I agree that some sort of culture always exists. However I think just as we can separate culture from nature with diet and nutrition, we can do the same with social relations with sexuality being a part of that.

Of course it would be impossible to create a society without culture so speculation is really all we have.

Chris Ryan doesn't state his hypothesis in the same way I did in the book, the "natural" word is my shorthand way of explaining the concept.

@ego

Please also consider that more people are in open relationships (or some form if an alternative relationship) than you know. This sort of thing is taboo and not everyone will talk openly about it especially if they are invoked in "swinging".

There are also cultural differences, a good friend of mine is Italian and she tells me that in Italy it is accepted that married couples will have "lovers" on the side. Relationship boundaries aren't looked upon as rigidly as they are in the US.

@James_0011 said: The bonobos are the closest example we have of egalitarian ( or "evolved") human culture (even though they are monkeys but I think you get my point) and a distinct feature of their culture is non monogamy. The chimpanzees on the other hand are more similiar to modern humans in that they have a hierarchy and are essentially a war culture, Chris Ryan argues that this power driven culture is related to controlling female sexuality through monogamy.

Right. However, I would note that there is just as much or more control of female sexuality in polygynous cultures. Previous to practicing poly-amory, I was in a 19 year modern egalitarian monogamous marriage, a 9 month monogamous contract with a Dom in the BDSM sub-culture, and a 3 year Islamic marriage contract in which I insisted monogamy be practiced. So, I have some experience in how relationship power dynamics play out in varying cultural contexts. On average women hold the least power in polygynous contract and the most power in poly-amorous contract. I suppose that if the Island of the Amazons who practice polyandry, but not polygyny, existed then that would be the realm in which women held even more power than in poly-amory.

One problem with polyamory is that both submissive females and dominant males (and, of course, individuals tending towards the opposite dynamic) tend towards preferring, or retaining, a level of erotic possession in their sexuality and as romantic validation. "You are mine, all mine, and I will do with you as I please.Bwah-ha-ha" and gifts of tiny pink sugar-hearts that bear similar ownership memes. So, the funny thing is that the sort of nerdy human who is best able to compartmentalize or intellectualize erotic play for one set of purposes, can also be the sort of person who is best able to compartmentalize or intellectualize the practice of polyamory for another set of purposes. I suppose this is similar to how playing at sports releases some of the instincts and energies that might otherwise be exerted in warfare, but an individual who is a mature, civilized, "good sport" will quickly, fluidly, switch gears when the game is over and shake hands with members of the opposing team and invite them to convivial event at local pub. This sort of civility is also exhibited in casual sexual encounters between mature, experienced individuals. (However, it can also be great fun when you are 51 to pretend like you are a 15 year old protecting her virginity in the back seat of a car with a 58 year old man.)

Anyways, one of the reasons why I crashed and burned on polyamorous practice is that I observed some signs of lack of civility in the interactions between some of my male partners, and I probably over-reacted. An observation I would suggest to Olaz is that it is true that he may experience a good deal of difficulty competing with men who are willing to offer and insist on monogamy in our culture, which is now to some extent the culture of the world, in which every female will have watched umpteen Disney Princess movies by the time she reaches sexual maturity, and is therefore drilled in the notion that your sexuality ( and/or your heart's affection) is something you only fully own until some attractive and powerful man claims it for his own.