We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, October 18. 2022
Is monogamy "natural"? Of course not, because of the unrelenting sex drive of humans. Humans are always in heat, especially when younger but it never stops entirely. Regardless of how committed one is, all anybody needs to do is to check your fantasies. Temptation abounds.
Infidelity Reconsidered - As a society, we should not presume to judge the relationships of others based on our own moral code.
Really? I advise people to check with their spouse first. And yes, I know, it "happens" all the time.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I argue that there is a biological imperative for monogamy.
There are a ton of sexually transmitted diseases: gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, herpes, HPV... and now monkeypox. And I haven't named all of them.
If there was a reason to not sleep around, I would think STI's would be it.
The libs act like STI's are just an inconvenience, but they are more than that. Some of them, no one can ever completely recover from. Some lead to cancer. Untreated syphilis is horrible. And penicillin-resistant strains of it and of gonorrhea are developing. Women who get infected even once can be left unable to have children.
Marriage is an institution and being institutionalized is no fun.
That whole someone exists out there just for you is extremely selfish and delusional as well.
Monogamy for family building if one has that inclination.
There is a war against the family on by the controllers as it dilutes allegiance to the state.
I've been in a nice, calm marriage for over 20 years. I see no reason to fuck it up with infidelity.
As soon as someone tells me that I need to get past my morals, I just try to get past that person.
It is more than something to be endured. Marriage is the opportunity to help someone you care for to reach out and become the best human they can be! It is a blessing to share art, explore places, learn a new language to create and build together. To enrich each other's lives is the best purpose for marriage!
"And yes, I know, it 'happens' all the time."
So does murder. But it's no excuse.
I think getting rid of no-fault divorce would solve many of society's problems, as its existence is the cause of so many of them.
I realize that infidelity is a just cause for divorce. But there is a relation between the two things. When people approach marriage knowing that they can walk away without a good reason, they often don't take it very seriously. Many people don't see much difference between marriage and living together.
It seems to me that there are quite a few human actions that come 'natural'. Stealing seems natural. You want it, you take it. Someone gets in your way, you kill them. Survival of the fitist, right? Might makes right; it's as natural as the sun coming up from the east.
However, we have evolved to understand that so much of what comes natural, just is not compatible with civilization. One only needs to watch several episodes of Mad Men, to understand the hurt and distruction that infidility will create in a relationship. Besides, marriage is a sacrement from God. He calls us to perfection, a higher order than what comes naturaly.
There are very few things I could do to set my children up for success more consistently than marry a stable and nurturing wife, and then stay faithful to her. Sounds hard. But trying to clean up the kind of messes we'd create with an "open" marriage or never marrying my baby momma would be much more work.
I owe it to my wife and my children to be faithful to her. She is faithful to me for the same reasons. Oh, and then we honestly love each other, too.
Sure, temptation happens. But we aren't animals. We can resist urges.
“Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we were put in the world to rise above”
My hypothesis would be that sexual jealousy would be a hugely destructive force in a small band of people for whom survival depends on cohesion and cooperation. I think, it's the same reason that the model of the primate alpha male doesn't work very well for humans. The alpha can't drive away his best tracker, best knapper, best spear chucker, or the one who knows where and how to exploit resources when things turn bad. In other words human organization is more a hierarchy of cooperative beta males.
As a society, we should not presume to judge the morality of others based on our own moral code.
Open your eyes and see how destructive that model has been lately in this country. Everything is permissible in your eyes even if it harms so many others around you.
My apologies. I was being ironic in order to demonstrate the contradiction in the headline of the writer of this article. I was trying to point out the extreme judgementalism of his own proclaimed non-judgementalism. I don't think it possible to reason with people as irrational as that. By their fruits do we know them.
"As a society, we should not presume to judge the morality of others based on our own moral code"
Your statement is judging the morality of others based on your own moral code. "Should not" is the key...
I believe that the majority culture has no idea what marriage is and that they confuse it with with cohabitation plus a wedding show (not necessarily in that order). Add to this the Marxist media culture which actively opposes marriage and family. I also suggest we stop using the word "marriage" for relationships that are not and simply describe them clearly (e.g., concubinage, serial polygamy).
The commenters here have all missed th central, Darwinian, point. When humans first entered Eurasia, they found a harsh, cold environment, and monogamous marriage was necessary for the survival of the group and the raising of children.
In the old African homeland, food was readily available year round. A single woman could support herself and her children by herself. No resident male was needed. Consequently, there was no ecological pressure for monogamy or even for marriage.
The modern welfare state replicates the ancient African savana, which why the ghettos are full of single mothers.
just a thought, riffing on the historical anthropology: I don't see anybody bringing the extended family model(s) into this discussion - "monogamy" always seems to be defined as the pioneer man / woman / children image, but there's just as often a widowed mother (-in-law), uncles, aunts, surviving orphans... not just for pioneers either (grandma raising the kids?).
Jeff Allen: just a thought, riffing on the historical anthropology: I don't see anybody bringing the extended family model(s) into this discussion
It's a good point. Extended family groups and tribal relationships are deeply woven into human communities. However, the question with monogamy is often of the form "Who's your daddy?"
Genetic evidence indicates that humans are not only socially monogamous, but have been more genetically monogamous (extra-pair paternity) over the last 500 years than most other monogamous mammalian species. However, the degree of genetic monogamy varies considerably due to socioeconomic factors. Of note, urban people with low socioeconomic status tend to be less genetically monogamous. See Larmuseau et al., A Historical-Genetic Reconstruction of Human Extra-Pair Paternity, Current Biology 2019.
However, this has not always been so. The shift from polygyny to monogamy may have occurred only in recent evolutionary times, probably coincident with the development of agriculture and settled living. See Dupanloup et al., A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2003.
Finally, the genetic basis for monogamy appears to be deeply rooted in the vertebrate lineage. See Young et al., Conserved transcriptomic profiles underpin monogamy across vertebrates, PNAS 2019.
Dr Laura (I think), on a phone call to a woman who said that sex wasn't a priority to her anymore and how to get rid of it, "Is your marriage a priority?"
My thoughts on monogamy and marriage?
If you're having problems with a woman, the last thing you need is another one.
Once when Mark Twain was lecturing in Utah, a Mormon acquaintance argued with him on the subject of polygamy. After a long and rather heated debate, the Mormon finally said, “Can you find for me a single passage of Scripture which forbids polygamy?” “Certainly,” replied Twain. “No man can serve two masters.”
" As a society, we should not presume to judge the relationships of others based on our own moral code."
I have to agree with that one. There are many possible moral codes, you may consider yours to be superior to all others, why else did you choose it after all.
But those others with different moral codes made their decision as to which is superior as well.
And no, I don't mean you should just consider all options to be identical, but do realise that yours isn't necessarily the best or only one just because it is yours.