Came across a piece on the Internet yesterday that caught my eye. It’s written by a woman who is some sort of relationship guru. The article in question proposes a number reasons why polyamory, polygamy and just about anything prefixed by ‘poly’ in gender relationships, is a recipe for certain failure and should be avoided at all costs.
Having endured what I regard to be 70 years of cruel and unusual punishment under the unyielding yoke of monogamy, and having personally witnessed the largely negative if not catastrophic effects of this cult-like social convention on men, women and children alike, I took it upon myself to email the author and set out a few fundamental reasons, with respect to why I differ strongly with her opinions. Essentially what I conveyed in my email is as follows:
“I’ve just read an article written by yourself that provides multiple reasons why polyamorous and polygamous relationships are unlikely to succeed in the long term. You are entitled to your opinion and there can be no doubt that it’s consistent with a worldview that deems monogamy and the quest for ‘soulmates’ as being the only gender relationship model worthy of serious consideration. That said, I’d like to respectfully put forward a few thoughts that reflect a different perspective. I’ve no mandate to speak for other men, but feel reasonably sure that a great many would concur with my sentiments.
Being predominant, monogamy has every outward appearance of qualifying as ‘normal’ human behavior. The question is — does it also qualify as a ‘natural’ behavioral pattern, and to answer that question clearly and objectively, we must of logical necessity look to Nature. From a zoological perspective (which excludes the cumbersome and confusing inclusion of marriage in the sexual relations scheme of things) animals are classified as either monogamous (having one mate) or polygamous — meaning more than one mate. Furthermore and despite all attendant risk of public stoning or castration at the hands of offended members of the female sex, it has to be said that in Nature, polygamy in the mammalian order usually consists of one male and multiple females. It is, you might say, Mother Nature’s way.
Further to this fundamental zoological classification: of over 5000 mammalian species, some 97% were traditionally classified as polygamous, while just 3% were classified as monogamous. DNA paternity testing has, however, brought to light in no uncertain terms that while animals might well be ‘socially monogamous’ (meaning that they hang out together) they are not ‘sexually monogamous’ in keeping with what humans mean when they use the term ‘monogamy.’
In short, and however inconvenient the facts may be, polygamy is the standard in all of Nature and the reason for this is primarily linked to the transfer of favourable genes to offspring — as opposed to the alternative which is progressive genetic degradation. I would furthermore like to suggest that so-called monogamous human society, in reality, amounts to a thinly veiled tide of non-monogamy of every conceivable and frequently extreme, repulsive, corrupt and diseased description.
Cheating is not merely ubiquitous, it provides the basic platform for TV shows like The Bold and the Beautiful, the essentially story line of which (if you can call it that) is an endless merry go round of partner swapping. It’s one of the most watched TV shows on the planet and relished by millions of people around the world, the majority of whom, in their personal capacity, would undoubtedly also claim to be staunch advocates of monogamy. It really makes no sense at all and amounts to a sort of bizarre suppression and denial of fundamental human need for non-monogamous relationships, while simultaneously paying lip service to the soulmate theory, and kneeling at the altar of a form of social engineering that has clear and evidential links to patriarchy and the twin evils of religion and private property that spring from its tail.
The great lie of monogamy (by men of a cloth that closely resembles women’s apparel) is that it provides greater safety and security for women and offspring. The reality is that it reduces men to lies and deceit — with recourse to affairs, pornography and prostitution being the unspoken and generally accepted nudge-nudge wink-wink ‘norm.’ The reality is a divorce rate in the order of 60% and single mothers, together with their children, having to survive without the support of a loving partner — frequently followed by repetition of the same delusional and unsustainable downward spiral with yet another ‘soulmate’ and the playing out of yet another happily-ever-after infantile and ill-conceived fantasy. It’s a scenario that simply beggars belief and bears every hallmark of collective psychosis.
Women and men are different. We’re not biologically hardwired the same way and if the term ‘unconditional love’ actually has meaning, then should we not be hearing each other; identifying these differences and working together in a way that gives to each gender according to their need, and establishes an ultimate whole that is resilient, sustainable and greater than the sum of its parts? We don’t come from Venus and Mars and the need is to synchronize male and female energy, towards peace and harmony in terms of gender relations, and towards delivering to our children optimal genetic integrity and a natural environment worthy of their occupancy.
Love is not and should not be a synonym for sex. They are not one and the same thing and for men, in particular, sex tends to be physical with comparatively little associated emotional criteria. Men have sex. They generally do not ‘make love.’ It’s different for women. I understand that, but as a man I am not only capable of having sex with more than one woman (simultaneously or consecutively) but need to do so in order be true to my fundamental instincts; aspire to my full potential as a man and as a person and, in doing so, fulfill my duties and responsibilities towards the women in my life, with whom (speaking hypothetically of course) I’m strongly inclined by my core male instincts to develop bonds of affection — and to love and respect equally. Perpetual, unremitting and coercive monogamy reduces all such potential to ashes.
I understand why monogamy has such a powerful hold over women in particular and society in general. Monogamy may well conflict directly with our instincts, but it’s shaped and consistent in every way with faculties of reason moulded by parents, teachers, religious institutions and peer pressure to conformity with a group standard, that every child is exposed to and groomed to accept and never question. If not brainwashing, then the least that can be said is that monogamy exerts powerful societal influence, and the thought that it may all be a house of cards, the very foundations of which are threatened by suggestions that it’s an elaborate lie, stirs strong emotions and defensive attitudes that don’t always correspond with objectivity and reason.
Not to put too fine a point on it, till-the-death soulmate style monogamy is a fraudulent imposter that, far from being a shield of protection for women and vulnerable offspring, undermines their base of security and negates any real prospect of relating to a man with honesty and integrity, and in a manner free from unnecessary and unsustainable preconditions. It makes liars and cheats of men and sets the scene for gender disharmony and dysfunction.
I love women. I sincerely admire female energy and consider a return to matriarchy as being the single most important requirement for restoring gender harmony and turning the tide of environmental destruction that defines the time we live in. To be clear, I’m not saying that people should be denied the freedom to choose monogamy. All I’m saying is that polygamy (in the zoological context) is the evolutionary standard, has a great deal of merit attached to it, and that if people were free to choose how they want to live (without judgment, unfounded assumptions and general intolerance) that gender relations would benefit and the world would be a gentler and better place to live.
The key word is ‘freedom’ and while it may well be (for example) the preferred choice of young people to be monogamous, there might well come a time in their lives when a polygamous arrangement would most effectively accommodate their ever-changing circumstances, and restore the integrity of a bond that might otherwise have collapsed. People should be free to move seamlessly between monogamy and polygamy at their entire and complete discretion. It’s not about a contest of ideologies — it’s about allowing people to decide for themselves how they want to live, relate to each other and find happiness and fulfillment in each other’s company — however they choose to do so.”
—
This post was previously published on medium.com.
***
You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project
 |
 |
 |
 |
