Jul 26 2007
An awkward discussion of monogamy
I just read a really awful article on alternet.org (for all your crazy left-wing news(?) needs!) discussing whether monogamy is natural. Outside the complete unoriginality of the article, it really just sort of brushed lightly over the issue. The comments are as pathetic with people arguing about love vs. sex and instincts vs. other instincts and primal blahdeeblah.
When people discuss monogamy, they tend to skip right over practical concerns and into the blurry moral area of monogamy – which is where we get into the primal bullshit people constantly cite as some sort of reasoning behind human beings’ (mostly male) urge to screw anything with a pulse.
That is, perhaps, overly crude, and for that accept my apologies dear reader(s). Before we can examine any issue morally, I think it’s pretty important to examine it practically. The practical concerns will, more than likely, affect how we look at it morally.
The sexual act, in practice, can have a number of outcomes. Two partners can walk away relatively unaffected both physically and emotionally. One or both partners can walk away with all sorts of yummy diseases and little buggies underneath their skin (sooo cute!). One partner can walk away pregnant, in some cases, which sets off a whole different series of events, which the other partner should presumably be involved in since they share responsibility. And one or both partners can walk away emotionally impacted in a negative way.
So monogamy, as a practice, makes sense (outside of evolution and primal bullshit) for a few really practical reasons relating to the act of sex. Being monogamous and faithful significantly limits the exposure a person has to STIs, it creates a more positive (in this sense, positive in terms of both partners bearing responsibility) environment if someone is to become pregnant and can limit the negative emotional impact sex can have (or express) for people.
It’s complicated. The whole arena of sex is complicated (Tuesdays on Fox – SEX Arena, hosted by Bill O’Reilly and his falafel!). Which is why people writing stupid articles with song lyrics somehow explaining concepts and people leaving comments about how unfulfilled they are in monogamous relationships doesn’t really clear anything up for anyone. Or even get anyone started on the path to examining the issue.
Is it true there is an undue influence on young people today to be in monogamous relationships and get married? I don’t know. I don’t have much evidence either way. I think if you’re a teenager, you probably should only be interested in a monogamous relationship – at least until you sort out the emotions and consequences of sex.
Is it true people often have physical desires for someone else while they’re in a monogamous relationship? Absolutely. Does that mean that monogamy is somehow unnatural to humans? Not necessarily.
And who decided natural was best? We adapted to build cities, to eat McD’s to drive cars and there are some good developments in there, too. Medicine and things, things that have helped us to lengthen our lives and helped us to treat each other better – if only because we’re forced to by the law, which is also an unnatural construct overlaid upon the natural world.
Chances are, monogamy developed for a good reason. Chances are, if most people choose monogamous relationships, they’ve done it for a reason. That doesn’t mean that being polyamorous isn’t moral – or that monogamy is somehow morally superior. But it probly means we should each figure out what we want and go for it and stop having stupid debates about how sick and tired we are of society telling us we’re wrong. Do you. If you want to marry 60 women or 60 men or 60 transvestites or 60 transsexuals, I support your right to do so, and I’ll sign your damn petition.
K.
The contents of this blog entry may not reflect the views of the Webmaster of Doom, Michael.