Nov 232012
 
 Posted by on UTC 2012.11.23Fri at 21:54 monogamy MDYKD5  Add comments

MAZBVC:THIS POST

  1. MAYCNN:should be updated ~1x/3months; simply re-load/refresh & check-back then; ID of last entry is version.
  2. M87XAJ:has all key details BOLD with most-essential & -timely first.
  3. MAZBWQ:has SUBSECTIONS: DEFINITIONIN-PRACTICE, EVALUATION, ALTERNATIVESPOST TODO, FOOTNOTES, POST HISTORY.

MDFB2Z:DEFINITION

  1. MDYNDF:The general definition seems to be: two creatures both “being romantic” only/exclusively with the other “for some extended period”
    during which the relationship (the monogamy) is said to exist

    1. MDYNIC:where
      1. MDYNJ1:“being romantic”
        1. MDYNS4:varies hugely from/to:
          1. MDYNNW:any romantic/sexual action or thought of it (the purist form)
          2. MDYOHD:any romantic/sexual action, or showing of any apparent interest in these
            1. MDYRA8:seems the typical definition of “monogamy” in the US ~1940s
          3. MDYQVO:any romantic/sexual action or thought of it except for just-looking-at or talking-about somebody else provided no romance was actually started with him/her
            1. MDYR95:seems the typical definition of  “monogamy” in US~1980-~2010)
          4. MDYRM9:same as prior but also allowing romantic sexual kissing usually provided the other partner doesn’t see.
          5. MDYNP4:actually having sex with a reasonable chance of offspring or forming a romantic bond or disease risk
            1. MDYRBN:the typical “re-definition” of monogamy, or rather the fidelity/loyalty defined expected, by swinging
      2. MDYNTH:“for some extended period”
        1. MDYNTW:varies considerably from/to:
          1. MDYNWB:for all the creatures’ lifetimes (the purist form)
          2. MDYMFU:until broken by a romantic breakup having rules to make that not frequent if even possible
            1. MDYMB5:such as if via a divorce (note in some cultures a divorce may not be possible else very difficult; and in general divorce is not easy)
          3. MDYMKV:only for the current moment but where, once one of the creatures has been romantic with a 3rd creature, the original monogamycan never be resumed or else not for a very long time.
      3. MDYOQY:The more romantic-jealousy and/or (desire-for-just-one-romance-partner=one-itus), the more the expectation that monogamy be closer to the the purist form.
        1. MDYOU0:Note both these motivators are mostly-genetic and generally unhealthy.  For instance, for jealousy.
    2. MDYM13:the purist form
      1. MDYO9N:is thus where two creatures, for their entire lifetimes, never be romantic nor ever desire romance with any other besides the other creature.
      2. MDYMZD:Typically thought & held-up to be the ideal
      3. MDYMXG:In practice, almost never exists except where the creature’s lives are unusually short.
  2. MDYN8J:The definition is somewhat like-but-not-as-bad-as “the” definition of god(s), including:
    1. MDYN4J:the definition varies notably by context where it’s often still not clear what the exact definition means
      1. MDYRQK:including the causing many men rightfully complain “I AM being monogamous with you: I just looked at that girl, I didn’t ask her out!”
    2. MDYSKD:The concept sounds & feels good until one looks fully & scientifically
      1. MDYN8R:if one thinks & spells out the definition, one often realizes one’s assertions/beliefs about it are often unrealistic (biggest example: the purist form)
  3. MDYPCZ: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy
    1. MDYQGJ:gives a definition which is matching but much less (precise & comprehensive)
    2. MDYQHP:appears to give a lot of scientific background

MDYTQ9:PRACTICE

  1. MDYTUU:Monogamy is still typically held to be the ideal for romance.

    1. MDYTYL:-tragic given monogamy is generally unhealthy.

MDGOA1:EVALUATION

  1. MDYU2W: Healthy True Monogamy

    1. MDYU4R:is rare and is often not as fully pretty as what may initially seem
      1. MDYV5H:My sister’s marriage appears to be a true, successful monogamy for all its years, and perhaps is, but:
        1. MDYVMV:she doesn’t have much desire for additional romance (indeed a bit more than typical)
        2. MDYV8Y:most important, she has to take on being the mother-of and share-custody-of child who is not her biological own but instead a kid from his previous & very disastrous marriage; indeed though his former wife & new wife might hate each other, they must routinely and forever deal with each other because of the shared child.
        3. MDYVC2:he was desperate to have a proper mother for his child, quickly realizing his his child’s biological mother is a terrible parent.
        4. MDYVGS:So while he may be driven to romantically be with additional women as men typically are, that direction is way too risky as finding another woman to properly mother his son would be very hard and could severely hurt his son.
    2. MDYU5V:If exclusivity is to have value, it must not be given away casually
      1. MDYUC7:but sadly in romance, women especially generally stick & give away their exclusiveness too much to fast, or else (like Samantha on Sex in the City) not at all: both are wrong.
    3. MDYUHZ:Destiny’s rule: Provided 100% safe sex (which should be done absolutely), don’t give away your romantic exclusivness until you’ve romantically lived with the person for 3 months.
      1. MDYUK2:1st published ~2005; find reference.
      2. MDYWEH:Contrast with with what seems typical: women notably give away their romantic exclusiveness after 1st or 2nd sex, typically before ever living with the person.
    4. MDYWG6:More TBA.
  2. MDYSQLMonogamy is generally overrated.

    1. MDYSWK:Why?  Monogamy is still typically held to be the ideal for romance but
      1. MDYSXB:monogamy’s hard to make work –not a good reason without easier alternatives which work just as well, but none of the alternatives generally are easier.
      2. MDYSZP: monogamy’s generally unhealthy -an outstanding reason!
    2. MDYSSP:Fortunately acceptance of this seems to be growing.
  3. MDYOYR:Monogamy is generally unhealthy.

    1. MDYPXH:This is still contrary to present popular belief, though fortunately acceptance of this appears to be growing.
    2. MDZ34N:The monogamy dream is mostly & increasingly failing:
      1. MDZ35X:In the US, the broken family and now single-parent & no-parent kids have long become the norm.
      2. MDZ3FC:In the US till today 2012, about 98% of the marriages are still just between 1 man & 1 woman and look the results:
        1. MDZ385:Since ~2001, the majority (~51%) of the marriages end in divorce (and ~60% for remarraiges).
          1. MDZ39L:Of those that don’t divorce, I guestimate about 1/2 are actually happy.
            1. MDZ3AQ:That means only about 20% of the marriage are actually happy, and 80% of the time marriage isn’t working.
        2. MDZ3D3: Around 2010, the Pew Research Foundation found ~75% of young adults believe marriage is a failing institution.
      3. MDZ47P:And we’ve found no other significant creatures actually do monogamy, either, even when they appear to be
        1. MDYQ0Q:Recent DNA testing of  has shown monogamy is almost never done in practice by non-humans even by swans (citation needed), though pretending-to-be-monogamous is frequently done (citation needed).
      4. MDZ3KI:The problem is so bad that 2012.07.12 TV network leader Showtime released their new reality series Polyamory (smartly) advocating polyamory as a solution, as the new (& real) VERY “Modern Family”, and the show got no serious criticism and was actually rated “Best reality show TV“.
    3. MDYPRJ:Yes there are situations where monogamy is the best practice, but they are unusual or temporary and/or where, with better education including of society, alternatives as notably romance-friends would be better.
    4. MDYP84:If romance truly & fully based on friendship as we (rightfully IMHO) say it should be, then it follows that monogamy is unhealthy.
      1. MDYP3Q:As I pioneered in romance-friends: If the best romance is based on friendship, well friendship is fundamentally non-exclusive and you don’t go looking demanding to find your soul-friend, so then monogamy is generally unfriendly, so not healthy.
    5. MDYTHA:also explained by why romance-friends & polyamory rid of one-itus & monogamy.
    6. MDZ431: The bad goal of monogamy explains this and fixes.
    7. MDYT45:pros-thru-cons of actual monogamy suggest this.
    8. ME5YHE:http://okcupid.com/profile/SaberPen/questions?search=monogamy has a little bit more & references here.
    9. MDYP0P:I’d like to do more writing in this section making it appropriately stronger plus moving some of the referenced writings to here.
  4. MDZ5AK:Why did/has desiring monogamy and traditional marriage become popular, especially if it’s generally unhealthy?

    1. MDZ5O5:~98% of women are wired to only want one partner at a timeso men, being the pursuers  then have to make women believe that’s what they men want too order to get women to romantically accept them.

      1. MDZ9KE:This seems to be the #1 reason and not surprisingly, it’s genetic and also practiced my many other creatures besides humans.
    2. MDZ8X1:Traditional marriage & divorce is fairly big business
      1. MDZ8YL:Weddings can cost in the $10Ks.
      2. MDZ8ZX:Divorces can cost $10Ks in lawyers fees.
    3. MDZ99H:Money-lenders profit from monogamy & notably marriage ideally with kids
      1. MDZ9CV:as if a person does/has these things, then it’s generally much harder for him/her to skip out on a loan, so then money-lenders can profitably extend much more “credit” so end them notably more and charge more interest
      2. MDZ9FF:but a world where people are expected to lend a lot of money is probably not good
    4. MDZ5CC:Before the age of safe sex, before the average person knew how to & could control the physical consequences of sex (preventing & ridding disease & pregnancy, plus had adoption agencies), the following customs made a lot of sense:
      1. MDZ5H9:not having sex until you were married
        1. MDZ5L5:And  that then meant  monogamy (via marriage) (or else polygamy iff one could simultaneously marry multiple people, but that’s still fairly rare)
      2. MDZ5HX:not living together until you got married (as that led to sex before marriage)
    5. MDZ5W2:It monogamy & traditional marriage wrongfully-favors those in power (though they don’t have to do it themselves!)
      1. MDZ5XK:Especially in times before the atomic bomb, the only generally sure I a ruler would overtake and capture and enemy nation is via having more soldiers than they do.
      2. MDZ62A:If I want to collect more taxes for me the head leaders, the only sure way to have more people producing more stuff.
      3. MDZ61E:If I am the head of the a big church, the only way to take over & replace all other religions is to have more followers than they do.
        1. MDZ6N5:just take a look at what church with the most believers in the world does, the Catholic Church: it notably sets most every rule resulting in its followers successfully raising more children (so more believers): no contraception, no abortion, no homosexuality, and no sex before marriage. So no surprise then it HAS the most believers!
      4. MDZ63J:And if I want more soldiers & followers & constituents & citizens, I don’t get these things by telling my people “go pursue love & happiness & great sex & romantic fulfillment”; instead I get that by just convincing them (as by religions or laws or both) to just, “1 man & 1 woman, pair up and bang me out a lot of kids”.
      5. MDZ66C:However as the leader, I may say these rules don’t apply to me, as for me I DO want romantic fulfillment.
        1. MDZ67S:So for instance, the last emperor of China had ~100 wives and several hundred concubines plus cut-off-the-balls of every man in his court — a great demonstration of the typical man’s actual romantic desires if unconstrained.
    6. MDZ6FX:So if all these reasons for it are true, why aren’t they common knowledge?
      1. MDZ6Q3:After a generation or so, the rules become custom where we don’t ask why & indeed often don’t even think it, just do as our parents did. So the Why is quickly lost
        1. MDZ6RD:Plus these are rules of families, and parents are notorious for telling their kids to do things without every telling them why.

MCYO1K:ALTERNATIVES

  1. MDYPRZ:Most notably the best known to date: Romance-friends™ – romance form for the 21st century.

    1. MDZ51B:Except for runner-up polyamory, no other romance-form comes close.
    2. MDZ51N:So simply seriously try Romance-friends™ 1st before looking elsewhere.

MDE167:POST TODO, roughly in order:

  1. -none other than those noted.

MDAIRC:FOOTNOTES

  1. .

M31R7R:POST HISTORY, in order:

  1. MDZN7R:For many years starting ~2004 or perhaps earlier, I wrote about monogamy as part of other articles (some referenced here) but never gave it its own proper post, but that is very handy to refer to whenever the concept comes up, especially to then include all the important advise on it.
  2. MDYLSF:“2012-09-27 00:38:55” created forwarding link “http://1.JotHere.com/MAMono” going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy but go to this page when it exists.
  3. MDZN4B:Just before the creation of this post, I wanted to answer this OKCupid Q about polyamorous where I included “as (Monogamy is generally unhealthy http://1.JotHere.com/MAMono#MDYOYR )” so needed this text to exist to refer to it
  4. MDYLKF:so now created this post
    1. MA0XOK:How:
      1. MA0Y30:create by doing Copy to a new draft of http://1.JotHere.com/3829#MDWPLX latest release MDWUFV.
      2. MAFH1U:edit to fit, including giving fresh IDs to whole & history items.
  5. MDZ9KR:reasonably complete 1st version, so publish, pst2012.11.23fri2151.
  6. MDZ9MO:Repoint http://1.JotHere.com/MAMono to here;  pst2012.11.24sat0248.
  7. ME5Y6B:M31R7R: removed mistaken extra “</section><section>”; ME5YHE: added; pst2012.11.274tue1238.

  One Response to “monogamy”

  1. N0W7ZM Ways to (try to) do Monogamy

    1. N0W81M (not to imply here encouraging of it)
    2. N0W802 Say & think: “You can get your appetite anywhere as long as you eat at home.”
      1. N0W82L I just 1st heard this on “Live! With Kelly and Michael” new episode spoken by Michael (broadcast pst2014.02.12Wed0918 on TV channel “7 KABC”).
      2. N0W8CL very clever wording so easy to be attracted to it
      3. N0W8DD but remember
        1. N0W9GX we absolutely don’t do this in real life: we don’t travel about getting our appetite wet by food but expect to only eat what we have at home: no, most of the time we then go eat what attracts us.
        2. N0W9J7 For years I’ve said (imagery I invented) something that well speaks for males (but typically not females): ~“Your favorite restaurant will most definitely NOT be your favorite, indeed you’ll likely become sick of it, if you eat there, indeed forced to eat there non-stop, day after day and morning-noon-and-night.”