He, i didn’t think you were serious about polymory, being a stoic and all…
I think jealousy would be a problem in such a relationship. It’s bound to devellop in unbalanced ways, i think, e.g. two of the three getting closer then with the other.
Perhaps my studys haven’t brought this up, but when is polymory abhorred by Stoicism? Adultery is surely but that’s a differant matter.
The thing is polymory is like a love triangle thats actually a triangle rather than a “V”.
You’re undoubtably right about this… it just was an assumption of mine.
Yes, ideally… i don’t think it’s that easy in practice, to just decide it to be like that.
Well, as I have said, I’d like too see if it would work.
If I were sure then I wouldn’t be wondering about it.
Ok, fair enough.
Polygamy and whoredom is the sexual norm for human beings.
Just ask yourself how many people have you had sexual intercourse with in your life.
With women in their late twenties the answer is usually fifteen or more.
With women in their thirties or older the answer is…
Well I hope I’ve been helpful here.
I don’t find it difficult.
For every loyal monogamous couple with a ratio of 5% there is the rest of modern couples cheating amongst themselves having sexual intercourse with others outside the relationship. 
Honey I’m home! It’s really been a rough day screwing around with the secretary at the office.
How’s your day been?
My day has been fantastic sweetheart! I couldn’t choose who to cheat around with behind your back first.
Was it the gardener or the pool boy of whom I slept around with first? I can’t really remember…
Humans can be either Monogamous or any varient of the alternative.
There is no norm, other than that societies worldwide often support monogamy but there are always exceptions.
By norm I mean majority. Wish you luck disproving what I said.
not for PRAYING MANTICE
[size=85][SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAK][/size]
That blew my mind.
I’m not moral enough to engage in partner swapping or polygamy.
I don’t think there is a clear division–it’s a wash. There exists a plethora of psychologies involved. You did mention that you lose interest–I find this to generally be a result of the uncertainty being removed from the situation, becoming familiar, the age old maxim of “from a distance” being brought to mind. You see an individual, are confronted by their simulations/dissimulations and thus create an idealized conception, learning only over time to what extent your imagination renovated the true individual. Or on the contrary, perhaps that proverbial “one” hasn’t walked your way yet, though I am quite skeptical of the notion.
This also concerns the concept of romantic love. Not to be cliche, but I have felt it once…though my inquisitive nature questions it regularly: I am virtually positive I’ve felt what many describe as love. I question, however, if it is a distinct emotion or if it is a bewildering conglomeration of psychologically weighted emotional responses. A sense of dependency, vulnerability, sexual desire, admiration and anxiety were the main components I was able to separate while sifting through the reminiscences of a particularly influential relationship experience.
I will say that multiple fleeting relationships does not work well for someone who is shy, even more so if you spend most of your time behind books, a piano, a sketchbook or a camera lens in nature. Hence, I have been alone for more than a year and a half now…after three years with an aspiring actress/model.
Assuming this is true, and it is true, Monogamy becomes apparent for what it is…a religious ideal.
And Monogamy is the most difficult type of human relation, or relation between living beings, possible.
It requires the most work, the most amount of trust, the most vigilance, a backing of the entire community, and more.
Monogamy is also symbolic of royalty, or at least royalty is justified on the grounds of this morality. And I will disagree with Mister Walker in the sense that, even if morality is fictional, that does not mean that people who enact monogamous relationships successfully, are themselves false or liars, especially if they recognize the inherent value and virtuous nature of a successful marriage, and relationship between two people, man and woman. Many people cannot maintain enduring relationships, with the same gender or the other gender. Many people have failed relationships, and those failures are their own. Therefore, the very notion of monogamy could be seen as abhorrent or improbable in nature.
In fact, I will contend here that Marriage is 100%, absolute artificial. And there is nothing Natural about it. Nature is the exact opposite of monogamy. Monogamy, and Marriage, are both purely masculine traditions, and represent God or Man’s will over or against an environment, including the very nature of women and femininity. All women are secretly jealous of marriage, and those with successful marriages, because women innately understand the foreign nature of a marriage vow, and what it means. It is the binding between a man and a woman, by Word, by Deed, and by Community. For women, it is commonly seen as a sign of high class, signaled by nobility, despite class. It is a route to social status. And women are attracted by this.
For men, it’s a much easier explanation. Men sacrifice their sexual conquest, to the bond and ‘slavery’ of a marriage. A marriage completely curtails a man’s sexual desire to his word as a communal Promise. He promises, in front of everybody, that he shall not betray his Word, and therefore becomes bound to not just his wife, but to his extended family and community, and to the particular religious institution that validates, legitimizes, and backs the ceremony.
Gay marriage is false, and a sham, “The State’s” sexually perverted alternative to a Roman Catholic tradition. These people are just wannabe Christians, without believing in “God”. They’re envious and jealous of Christian tradition, religion, and ideology. They are throw-aways, and feel excluded by the “harsh” discriminating nature of almost every religious tradition, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Queers and homos are jealous of Catholicism, and want to attain nobility, through marriage, with their own shams and lies. And why not give it to them, if The State institution, competing against religion directly now, and acting as a Moral Authority, can within its power, give them what they want?
After all, it just means more Votes for politicians. Gay Marriage is the means by which The State is becoming a religious organization itself. And when The State dictates morality, then this is no longer a Republic or a Democracy, but a Tyranny.
What does religion have to do with it per se?
True.
True in the sense that it was used by royal houses as a means to consolidate power, by merger of the assets of two families. But at the same time there is nowhere more debauchery than in the royal class. I doubt there has been a monogamous monarch very often.
As you say it is purely a symbol. It may be a religion in itself, if one chooses to bring it into a context of worship, instead of as ‘merely’ an ideal of trust.
I contend that the latter is stronger. It proves that one does not any longer has need of the God- stimulus (eternal reward versus eternal punishment) to make that kind of sacrifice and commitment.
Very good explanations and definitions – I agree with them, leaving aside the “romantic folly” itself, the love-rush giving the will to share a lifetime together, which is simply a source of pleasure.
None of this follows from your explanation of what marriage is. Unless you want to revert back to the idea that it is a Biblical ideal (not just religious since Islam encourages polygamy, likely to justify the birth of Ishmael) as opposed to ‘merely’ royal/symbolic.
Religions are communal institutions served to bind a community together. This is done through the symbolic relationship between Man and Woman, as these two are required to beget the children of society. Homos cannot do this, and want to challenge this notion, through the introduction and implementation of artificial insemination and genetic engineering. There are very anti-Christian elements proposing these ideologies as a substitute for classical Roman Catholic traditions. Some people hate Christianity, for political reasons, and want to destroy it completely. They are a submersive, foreign element to western society and culture.
Regardless of that, religion is still more than effective at what it does. The dissolution of the american family unit, in the United States, is under attack by these decursive elements. There are people of all shapes and sizes who hate Monogamy, and want to see it destroyed as the antithesis to their hedonistic ideals and debauched sexual practices. Sexual deviants, for one, hate the notion that some foreign moral authority controls sexual discourse, the concept of beauty within society, and sexual power itself. Yet, religion does this. It always has, through Inspiration of an ideal of what ought to become possible for the Man and Woman representing any particular society. Christians and Muslims both have this in common, as both strongly value the relationship between Man and Woman above all other cultural institutions. The exception to this rule is the monogamy imposed by East Asians under the oriental tradition and culture.
You may call Chinese and Japanese monogamy and marriage practices “not religious”, but I’d disagree with that. Because despite any foreign culture, religious practices still underlie the concept of what it means to become married, and why marriage is important in the first place (as a unity that entire cities, states, cultures, populations, and even the world can revolve around). In fact, the very Specie of humanity, and therefore humanism, is protected by some form of monogamy, expressed by the sexual relationship between man and woman. The difference between the Humanist inception of marriage, though, is that marriage stands a barrier against what is “right” and “good” to them, which is, sexual promiscuity, polygamy, and polyamory.
Yet who disagrees that it’s easier for a male to fuck anybody, or anything, he wants to??? Nobody disagrees.
The religious attachment to Marriage exists within how distinct cultures legitimize and promote marriage as a reward for males. Because males stand to suffer most, through their sexual desire, under Monogamy. Therefore men are entitled to a trade, of some sort. Religions role is to validate and legitimize this reward system. This is known as the “Kingdom of Mentality” complex, or that, “immortality” is offered through the religious institution itself. And it’s partly figurative in the sense that…men who could not have children otherwise, without religion, are enticed into religion for that primary reason alone. This imposes a drag on the classical Nobility of religion, especially concerning an institution like Roman Catholicism. In other words, a lot of ugly, weak, unintelligent males may join religion just for the hope they couldn’t have sex otherwise. Yet, that is not what religion itself is about, at all. The ideal, of a monogamous relationship between two human beings, a Man and a Woman, ought not imply any religious connotation at all. But it does, regardless. It has to, because monogamy itself is an ideal, relationship. It is an idealization of Trust between people. It cannot mimic fraternity between males, or sorority between females, but rather the fulfillment of the sexual union between the two genders humanity has grown and evolved into.
Other sexual practices still lag behind, by a great deal, in evolutionary terms. In other words, Evolution has produced the function of religion and morality, perhaps as an unintended consequences of what monogamy and marriage actually mean in practice.
Have you ever been to a frat party??? 
Perhaps Prince William and Princess Kate of the English Crown and Monarchy can display otherwise?
Yes, to me, religion can become unnecessary to monogamy and marriage, but, almost never is.
The reason why religion reaffirms the monogamous ideal, is because, it often takes the support and reinforcement of the greater community, to maintain a successful marriage, for some few individuals. And others, simply do not have the “value”, to maintain the marriage anyway. In other words, Marriage itself, and therefore monogamy, are not for everybody. Rather, I’d say, monogamy is only true, or ought to become attempted, by maybe <0.01% of the human population. Very few can live up to this ideal, if anybody can at all…
Yet look at what is happening to a Godless american society. Divorce has become rampant. Homos want to marry. Children have no parents, or broken homes, or become adopted to serve The State. It’s a morally degenerate society, and even the pedophiles are trying to justify themselves, philosophically. Perversion is the new sanctity. And almost everybody across the world is losing, if they haven’t lost it yet, their respect for the United States, and american “culture”.
God maybe unnecessary, yes it’s true, especially in a Protestant mindset…but, in practical terms, this is simply false. The few who can maintain a marriage, and a family, in these times, are exceptional people in every sense of the word.
This is truly a Genealogy of Morality that some individuals maybe, naturally, Monogamous entities without excuses through the reward system offered by religious institutions.
Yes, it could be. People say ‘lust’ and ‘love’ are two different things. But usually are unable to explain the difference. How these feelings become revealed is the matter of practicality. I know many young people, including teenagers, who only want to get married in order to have sex. They too, do not really understand the concept of marriage, but are running on hormones alone.
It follows in the sense that religion classically revolves around the marriage of Man and Woman because they will beget the next population of the society.
If religion imposes upon this process, then it becomes powerful as a result. Religion has made itself necessary, through the positive and negative results of this conquest over the wedding ceremony. Why else, would weddings be so aspirational and romantic for women? I can tell you from personal experience, that my ex used fantasize day and night, compulsive, about her “ideal wedding”. She would hint to me that she wants to get married and all that, so it was very important to her obviously. We didn’t end up marrying, as I actually believe in monogamy myself, and will only commit if it’s permanent. But, women idealize marriage for the reason I once mentioned, and that is, Social Status.
For men, it is an obvious sacrifice, as we promise ourselves to only have sex with one woman, rather than all those across the earth.
It also becomes no coincidence why women are most sexually attracted to married men, because, it means they can (as they already have) fulfilled their ideals too, of an acquired and enviable social status, often beyond the reach of slutty and whorish women.
I don’t think there’s a right and wrong, but only what works for the individual i.e. what they are happy with - my friends range from the virginal to the down right debauched… what each of us chooses to be is not questioned by the others… and we all lived happily ever after.
Questioned by others? I mean this in terms of questioning yourself, and questioning what you want. Perhaps you never want marriage? I’m not saying that people ought to want such a sacrifice. Because it is not for everyone, apparently.
What do you mean by happiness? Polygamy makes some people happy, so why not? Homosexuality makes some people happy, so why not? Sex, in other very obscene ways, also makes some people happy, so…why not? Pedophilia makes…we won’t even go there. But I hope you see my point.
Sexuality is a very controversial topic to discuss.
As for my point, I, myself, do want to realize monogamy. And if it happens, then I would have achieved my ideal. I don’t know if it will. But at least it is something I can strive for, and can work to create and realize. I exist as a counterproductive force to today’s hedonism. While most are focused on a more complete and thorough sexual debauchery, I am for something more, ehem, Virtuous. This is why I am a heretic against humanism. This is why anybody with a sense of “morality” or even “right and wrong”, do not belong in the United States. We, my position, has become the inferior and negative one, the hated one.
To have no morals, has become the superior western position, and an innate position. Westerners largely, culturally, have cast these old, forgotten, useless chains aside. And look at the results? Well, at least you’re happy Magsj. So why attempt to deny my mine? Are you going to get in the way of my becoming Monogamous? I hope not. But who knows what it will take for your happiness? I hope to Christ that you’re not, jealous, of others, your family members, are you??
What do we say about Envy? Is it a Good or Bad thing? Virtuous or not?
All very true.
I simply find the word religion to hold a different connotation than ideal(ism). And it is precisely this ugly unintelligent weakness that is the difference.
Your notion of the reward system is especially pertinent here.
Worth is the issue - one has to be worth an ideal. In other words, the ideal has to reflect the individual. Otherwise the “initiate” is a perversion of nature, not a dominating form of it.
Exactly.
Unintended by it and unessential to it.
– let us just say the Noble Class then.
I am afraid that the traditional monarchies are not up to the powerful currents of nihilism anymore, at least in terms of noble appeal, effective exampleship. The ground is being leveled and the only conclusion I draw from this is that the ground is now free to plant a forest or erect a monolith.
A newly devoted paganism/“worship of elements” may be possible, and Christianity may evolve very well with this, as it has always adapted to local traditions and contains the useful metaphor of resurrection and practice of confession. It’s sophisticated, western, Greek. The Romans made it into its mystical kingdom, a power structure based on the idea of freedom under God – a contradiction but a very powerful cultivating device indeed.c
I grew up amidst secular families who are all still together with well functioning and healthy offspring. Few of which feel the need to turn to religion. But I am from the northwest of Europe where none of religions masculine side has taken hold since rune-witchcraft was burnt out. We are neither pagan nor Christian - the only true religion present here is Islam. It is a powerful force and bewildering for the rationalistic populace. Especially its notions on man-woman relations, with its murders and polygamy.
So in the context of my views there is nothing to suggest that religion encourages culture, value and structure, rather the opposite.
To make it work one actively needs to construct the subjective narrative belonging to the objective ideal. One of the best examples that I know of, of what marriage can mean, is in the film Natural Born Killers. To establish a religion by marriage, which is shown as a blood-bond.
I imagine that in half savage half noble, initiative-rich, questing ‘Arthurian’ times, the notion of monogamy was felt almost as an explosive. An overturning of nature, letting all its value of it to the changeling flow back into him, a renewal of consciousness. That is always the issue. The birth of am original being, a family with at the center a child – all this is made possible by nature and capitalized on by the Church. But still, the Church and its mysteries are a perpetuated echo of such primal glory. On these foundations beautiful unions can be built, surely. But where are they now? Where is the ideal? I do not see that the Church, with its present representative, can do anything but divert from any ideal that may be possible at this time.
I am not an American and even though it is a dominating force on my own culture, I can safely say that I have nothing sensible to say about its religion. I have met various American priests and they have all impressed me in some way - a baptist church in Georgia had the greatest impact. But they were all of totally different creed. The only thing which they have in common is the ferocity of the priest.
But separate from them stand the masses, and they are simply being leveled. There is nothing else to it. Religions aiming to prevail have to reach out in ways more secular and rational than they had ever feared.
That is not to say that the masses are rational - but religion can not beat the entertainment of science if it does not apply itself in this field.
Back to the topic though I can not say a thing about monogamy and religion as it is in the USA, but I get the idea that there are many non-monogamous people, and also a lot of gays, who go to church and consider themselves Christians.
Yes, love is the idealization of lust, which is an artform. Lust being made the object of itself, the desired one being its agent. It relies on a self-manipulative application of the capacity to value, and, this can be helped by an institution. But to effect such change on todays masses of children the institution will have to be radically, yes religiously reformed. The dust has to be wiped out of the temple, it will have to occupy itself with technology. If it wants to be true to itself, it will have to reform technology, its application. This is what the noble Roman church used to be responsible for – its cathedrals being the most dramatic manifestations of technological mastery, and they still stand as marvels between our skyscrapers for one with an eye for quiet glory.
The masses have been bombarded with too much audiovisual pressure to rely on such means.
The ideal needs to be manifested more dramatically.
Aren’t we arriving at the root of the problem here?
Television has made religion impossible. “God is in the tv” - the problem for God is that he is not in the tv. All the power of the known universe is in the media. There is no content, only stream.
Pretty soon the slate will be blank. The church should capitalize on this if it does not choose to perish of weariness. It will mean giving Jesus a new face, a new entry. It may mean nothing less than that a second coming will have to be conceptualized and engineered. Philosophy and politics – the church used to have them both in its pocket.
The Church will have to be bold. It used to have the prowess of the Roman empire, it used to have a Jesuit order who were ahead in geographical and cultural exploration, it used to produce scientists! Even though it then objected to their findings, up until the religiously obsessed Newton. But now this is all gone… All this influence has waned. Precisely because religion has turned itself again against science - this is a dark age for Christianity, even though a dawn for man is perhaps not far off.
The problem with this is that the man-woman polarity pays on in an abstracted way in the homosexual relationship. There’s always one who is the man. I imagine that he/she would be the one to think, value like a man, in terms of practical benefits. And also here, the woman, whether really female or not, is the one who idealizes.
Still the issue of procreation is a strong legitimization of the institutions rejection of it. In many cases it has yielded to the predominance of idealization over this issue.
Of which there are increasingly many, and increasingly well funded. The notion of nobility is shifting from monogamy to one of sexual all-consuming. It remains to be seen if this will not become as powerful as the monogamic ideal itself - as an anti-ideal from which humans can independently, remove themselves and commit to a civilized relationship where trust is being created, instead of derived.