Is monogamy becoming an underrated value in our society?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes. Preferably strict, lifelong monogamy, removing only the morally irrelevant variable of gender.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes. Preferably strict, lifelong monogamy, removing only the morally irrelevant variable of gender.

Why should people feel compelled to remain in a relationship that is making them miserable until the day one partner drops dead? People don't just separate/divorce for the hell of it. Being in a bad relationship is the most stressful, unhealthy thing ever. There's nothing moral about it.

That's why I said 'preferably', as opposed to leaving it unqualified. I would hope that a generalized expectation of strict lifelong monogamy would make people approach their romantic and sexual choices with more consideration and further vision, but obviously mistakes and tragedies will still happen, in many of which cases continued enforcement of said expectation could become unduly cruel. My beliefs aren't that disconnected from the reality most people seem to experience.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why is life-long monogamy preferable to short-term monogamy?

Off the top of my head, because succeeding at something, especially something supposedly difficult, for a long time is more impressive than succeeding at it for a short time. There are other, frankly much more important, reasons, too--pertaining to loyalty, stability, continuity, emotional and social discipline, persistence, trust, the need for roots, and so on--but that's the one that's likeliest to amaze one's friends and confound one's enemies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why is life-long monogamy preferable to short-term monogamy?

Off the top of my head, because succeeding at something, especially something supposedly difficult, for a long time is more impressive than succeeding at it for a short time. There are other, frankly much more important, reasons, too--pertaining to loyalty, stability, continuity, emotional and social discipline, persistence, trust, the need for roots, and so on--but that's the one that's likeliest to amaze one's friends and confound one's enemies.

You're operating under the assumption that monogamy is more difficult than other forms of relationships and I'm not sure that I'd agree with that. One could make an argument that monogamy is actually easier- as you said, trust, stability, etc. all make maintaining a relationship easier in some ways.

Sorry, I should have been clearer--I don't think it actually is more difficult or particularly difficult or burdensome at all, but the society that we--at least those of us who are young and move and mostly liberal social circles--live in seems to, hence 'supposedly'. My motivations for giving that answer were I admit somewhat snide and effected by the disconsolate and unproductive day I've had so far.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would argue monogamy is much easier. You know what to expect, when and how to expect it, and what the outcome might be. When you deal with tons of people, hard telling what you will get. It is far stressful for me to be single than to be in a relationship.

Easiest for me is cooping myself up in my room and only talking to intimate friends and family, so...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obviously, "polygamy" as practiced in modern days and in history, is something disgusting and generally oppressive toward women. So voted yes.

What the hell, again with the infantilizing of women.

If it's a choice between infantilization and commoditization, I rather think it's obvious. Infants are a type of person, after all.

_____

For what it's worth, I do think there's rather more honor to be had in polyamory than in sexually open but romantically exclusive relationships, although I don't understand and would never participate in either.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If it's a choice between infantilization and commoditization, I rather think it's obvious. Infants are a type of person, after all.

Why do you assume people want monogamy, Nathan, just because they're female?  Monogamy is tiresome and boring for everyone, regardless of gender. The only reason women have traditionally supported it is that it is an expensive form of prostitution.

When did I assume that 'people want monogamy just because they're female'? (People regardless of gender I think should want monogamy, in whatever sense of the word 'should' you choose to apply, but whether or not they in fact do I can't speak to with any authority.) What I imagine a lot of people would want is for the likes of you not to hold forth on what they do or don't want out of relationships or what does and doesn't constitute infantilization, because most people don't hate themselves enough to think that it's a good idea to listen to you. There are in any case infinitely worse things in this world than being tired or bored, even accepting your (false) premise that not getting one's dick wet with an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of women has to be uninteresting unless one makes it so. I'm tired and/or bored a good solid majority of the time and I survive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How can you possibly comment on these issues?  You have no sexuality, no gonads - as you have told us many times.
[/quote]

Which disqualifies me from having moral opinions...why, exactly? If anything, concupiscent perverts such as yourself have a blatant conflict of interest.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

When did I assume that 'people want monogamy just because they're female'? (People regardless of gender I think should want monogamy,

Why?  What is the purpose?

Developing a sense of continuity and familiarity; developing and/or imposing or having imposed a sense of loyalty; learning humility by coming to define one self partially in relation to a specific other person; learning discipline, if one is one of those kinds of people for whom this difficult for some reason--need I go on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But for what purpose?  That's like arbitrarily saying you must eat peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches when there is also ham-and-cheese in the fridge.  There's just no point to denying yourself.  [/quote]

Ham is disgusting, too, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what way is this issue 'moral', Nathan?  It is just a matter of taste.[/quote]

opebo, almost every issue is somehow or other moral.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Desiring to have sex to the obsessive or near-obsessive extent that you do is perverse, pervert. Social norms can certainly be perverse relative to some higher ideal.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My, so much drama just for my (I think relatively moderate, certainly compared to other people of my personal inclinations and religious beliefs) antisexualism! I'll respond as best I can.


Now that I'm not writing a quick response on my way out the door to class, I will say afleitch and drj101 are entirely right--the problem with opebo is how he chooses to indulge his sex drive, which is completely within his control, not the fact that he has it, which presumably is not.

opebo, assuming your characterization of your own sex drive is correct, I retract my accusation of perversion as regards the degree and retain my accusation as regards the kind. It may not be sexual perversion--you're correct that I'm probably more 'perverted' than you are, in that sense--but it is emotional and spiritual perversion, which is far more important.

Also Nathan's slut-shaming of opebo is pretty gross and I hope he apologizes for it.

Could what I was just saying be characterized as an apology? If so, you're welcome. If not, your hope is vain.

opebo, my figments are a lot more fulfilling to me than your reality seems to be to you.

Well, certainly I disdain him, but he does the same for me so I suppose it all evens out in terms of politeness and respect?

I think so too. I'd say we're more or less fine here. Arguing with you is good fun.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the problem with opebo is how he chooses to indulge his sex drive, which is completely within his control, not the fact that he has it, which presumably is not.

opebo, assuming your characterization of your own sex drive is correct, I retract my accusation of perversion as regards the degree and retain my accusation as regards the kind. It may not be sexual perversion--you're correct that I'm probably more 'perverted' than you are, in that sense--but it is emotional and spiritual perversion, which is far more important.

Really?  I also go to the restaurant rather than cook my own food.  Does that rile you?

I kind of assume that food and sex present different types of social engagement and for that matter different types of pleasure, but that's secondhand. I'd say it depends on the kind of restaurant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What now?  Rather presumptuous of you to think you know me so well, n'est-ce pas?  For all I know you may get tremendous fulfillment from lying on your divan thinking about duty and honor whilst wearing a feminine costume, but I don't presume to judge.[/quote]

I do, actually, except for the divan which I don't have, and I said 'seems to' so as to hedge, you see. Don't worry, I know you get at least some fulfillment from your quixotic expatriate sybaritism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think so too. I'd say we're more or less fine here. Arguing with you is good fun.
[/quote]

Yes I suppose.  Though it is a bit one-sided.  You suggest that monogamy is somehow 'better for everybody' than other practices.  So, I guess I would say the burden of salesmanship is on you - sell away!
[/quote]

I promise that if and when I'm capable of taking one of these conversations seriously I will. I'm not doing this for your edification so much as the entertainment of our fellow Forumites, you see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, my argument is for sociopathology, not for hedonism.  And after all that is how society is actually run.
[/quote]

I presume when you go out to dine you don't eat your food with Hume's Fork, then.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

I take exception to the implication that it matters.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

I take exception to the implication that it matters.

Why? We've had several teenagers coming around talking about how they've sworn off sex, or they hate it, or it's disgusting without ever having had even a remotely sexual experience. I'm sure there are a couple experienced adults here and there who have legitimate aversions to it for whatever reasons, but around here it tends to be far more related to immaturity, fear, or the all-too-prevalent social dysfunction. So forgive me for wanting to clear that up, but it has everything to do with age.

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Beet's interpretation of my intent is correct. Of course not all sex is perverse and whether or not I think an instance of it is actually doesn't have that much to do with the act itself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...certainly these 'hooks' are directed preferably to a male audience, because it seems that the feminine desire was the great forgotten one until recently.

Actually no.  Female sexuality is the-desire-to-be-desired, and thus all the advertising which appeals to female insecurity (such as ads about feminine odor and weight loss and the like).

That's what women are told to have their sexuality be, yes. I'm sure for at least some it in fact is, but women aren't fungible. Nice use of hyphenation, by the way. Very Heidegger.