Thank you for writing this in such clear and thoughtful language. I have been interested in the subjects you touched on in this essay for a while, and I have been following Scott Alexander's arguments for a while.
I believe you have nailed down the fundamental truth of the origin of marriage as an institution developed for, amongst others, the purpose of optimizing security for women, reducing paternal uncertainty in men, and providing structures conducive to the sustenance of new life.
Your thoughts on prostitution were very interesting to me. As a young man who has used pornography in the past to take the pressure off my lusting eyes and bulging balls, the description of porn as a private substitute for prostitution rings true. I've always wondered what society would be like without prostitutes. You helped me see clearly what that might be.
I like how your arguments are rooted in reality and pragmatism, no unnecessary appeals to nebulous ideas around absolutel "moral worth." I can trust your arguments because they're not trying to impose an ideal that is based on extra-human contexts, or that is alien to how we've come to organize and understand ourselves as a species.
My $0.04 (inflation): Good relationships require pretty much the same core qualities (trust, respect, compassion, affection, etc.) regardless of poly, mono, or in between. Similarly, all relationship architectures can be used by bad actors to justify their selfish behavior. And all too often, the proponents of one approach will compare their good actors the the bad actors of the other architecture. Always a pain when I read those.
The first real difference, in my observation, is the amount of community support. If a given architecture is "mainstream" then there are more resources and more people who can provide support. In alternative communities, the smallness means that it's at risk of "none of us know what to do."
But that difference would be manageable if not for the second common human problem, which is "to feel good about my lifestyle choices, I'm going to insist that everyone else follow my lifestyle." I don't have a solution to that one.
You just caused me to have a realization about some experiences in my 26 year marriage. You don't get this far without real trust, respect, and ultimate goals and outcomes while also experimenting with new ideas throughout your marriage. Marriage has many phases because we are many different ages throughout. Also, monogamy nor polyamory should start to count towards anything until you are in a committed marriage or relationship where promises are made. Anything before that point shouldn't count in these discussions. That's just my opinion. I seem to have one about everything. Haha.
An interesting read, but the idea of WWII soldiers sharing their wives, do you have any data on that? I have never heard of such a thing.
As for marriage and monogamy, this cannot be saved until the family courts un-fuck themselves and stop allowing their man hatred to color their rulings. Right now, less and less men value marriage because there is no familial stability, only risk. This is why groups like MGTOW exists and whatever the feminine equivalent is.
Long term, I don't think harems or polygamy/swinging is the answer. This tends to create societies where the vast majority of men cannot find a woman. This leaves them with no buy-in to society and nothing to lose. A dangerous combo, I suspect. The old adage comes to mind, 'the child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." We are approaching that society now and only abating it with imported third world labor. This is a death spiral solution and can't last forever.
Anyway, a thoughtful post and I am glad you shared it!
>> every culture that didn’t literally keep women under guard has had customs around female adultery that are tacitly honored even when publicly condemned.
I think this sentence is grammatically problematic. I think, what it means is:
1) Adultery was publicly condemned
2) Adultery had rules which were honored for the most part and
3) Women who committed adultery but followed the rules were only condemned in a pro forma sort of way.
The way it is written could seem to mean that the rules themselves were tacitly honoured while being publicly condemend. Which would lead one to think that the society was saying 'there should be no rules to adultery!' As opposed to saying, "There should be no adultery (but if you are going to fool around, at least follow the rules!!).
I would be interested in hearing of the rules of a given society vis a vis female adultery.
Just a quick question. Shouldn't it be polygamy instead of polyamory? Polygamy is loosely defined as one man or woman, many mates. Think of the Mormons of old, one man four wives.
Second, bonding: Women and men’s baseline sexual responses are almost at odds with one another. Women generally become touch-receptive as the result of bonding, and sexually-receptive as the result of certain flavors of bonding, whereas men generally become receptive to bonding as a result of touch (including, but not limited, to sexual touch).
What do you suppose happens when the touch is one way, say from the man to woman, but the woman never reciprocates? What does is say when the woman goes to great pains to avoid touching her mate. When shes watched TV and plays on her phone until midnight, then goes to bed and sleeps on the far side of the mattress? When she wakes up in the morning and never speaks to her mate.
Thank you for writing this in such clear and thoughtful language. I have been interested in the subjects you touched on in this essay for a while, and I have been following Scott Alexander's arguments for a while.
I believe you have nailed down the fundamental truth of the origin of marriage as an institution developed for, amongst others, the purpose of optimizing security for women, reducing paternal uncertainty in men, and providing structures conducive to the sustenance of new life.
Your thoughts on prostitution were very interesting to me. As a young man who has used pornography in the past to take the pressure off my lusting eyes and bulging balls, the description of porn as a private substitute for prostitution rings true. I've always wondered what society would be like without prostitutes. You helped me see clearly what that might be.
I like how your arguments are rooted in reality and pragmatism, no unnecessary appeals to nebulous ideas around absolutel "moral worth." I can trust your arguments because they're not trying to impose an ideal that is based on extra-human contexts, or that is alien to how we've come to organize and understand ourselves as a species.
Again, thank you.
My $0.04 (inflation): Good relationships require pretty much the same core qualities (trust, respect, compassion, affection, etc.) regardless of poly, mono, or in between. Similarly, all relationship architectures can be used by bad actors to justify their selfish behavior. And all too often, the proponents of one approach will compare their good actors the the bad actors of the other architecture. Always a pain when I read those.
The first real difference, in my observation, is the amount of community support. If a given architecture is "mainstream" then there are more resources and more people who can provide support. In alternative communities, the smallness means that it's at risk of "none of us know what to do."
But that difference would be manageable if not for the second common human problem, which is "to feel good about my lifestyle choices, I'm going to insist that everyone else follow my lifestyle." I don't have a solution to that one.
You just caused me to have a realization about some experiences in my 26 year marriage. You don't get this far without real trust, respect, and ultimate goals and outcomes while also experimenting with new ideas throughout your marriage. Marriage has many phases because we are many different ages throughout. Also, monogamy nor polyamory should start to count towards anything until you are in a committed marriage or relationship where promises are made. Anything before that point shouldn't count in these discussions. That's just my opinion. I seem to have one about everything. Haha.
An interesting read, but the idea of WWII soldiers sharing their wives, do you have any data on that? I have never heard of such a thing.
As for marriage and monogamy, this cannot be saved until the family courts un-fuck themselves and stop allowing their man hatred to color their rulings. Right now, less and less men value marriage because there is no familial stability, only risk. This is why groups like MGTOW exists and whatever the feminine equivalent is.
Long term, I don't think harems or polygamy/swinging is the answer. This tends to create societies where the vast majority of men cannot find a woman. This leaves them with no buy-in to society and nothing to lose. A dangerous combo, I suspect. The old adage comes to mind, 'the child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." We are approaching that society now and only abating it with imported third world labor. This is a death spiral solution and can't last forever.
Anyway, a thoughtful post and I am glad you shared it!
BTW, the link in the beginning to my previous article seems to be broken. Here it is: https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/the-death-of-monogamy-the-definition
>> every culture that didn’t literally keep women under guard has had customs around female adultery that are tacitly honored even when publicly condemned.
I think this sentence is grammatically problematic. I think, what it means is:
1) Adultery was publicly condemned
2) Adultery had rules which were honored for the most part and
3) Women who committed adultery but followed the rules were only condemned in a pro forma sort of way.
The way it is written could seem to mean that the rules themselves were tacitly honoured while being publicly condemend. Which would lead one to think that the society was saying 'there should be no rules to adultery!' As opposed to saying, "There should be no adultery (but if you are going to fool around, at least follow the rules!!).
I would be interested in hearing of the rules of a given society vis a vis female adultery.
So, as far as polygamy vs monogamy vs others... does this chart help? Please excuse the format, if it turns out to be helpful I will prettyify it:https://substack.com/profile/10674706-von/note/c-51062387?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=6csnm
Just a quick question. Shouldn't it be polygamy instead of polyamory? Polygamy is loosely defined as one man or woman, many mates. Think of the Mormons of old, one man four wives.
Second, bonding: Women and men’s baseline sexual responses are almost at odds with one another. Women generally become touch-receptive as the result of bonding, and sexually-receptive as the result of certain flavors of bonding, whereas men generally become receptive to bonding as a result of touch (including, but not limited, to sexual touch).
What do you suppose happens when the touch is one way, say from the man to woman, but the woman never reciprocates? What does is say when the woman goes to great pains to avoid touching her mate. When shes watched TV and plays on her phone until midnight, then goes to bed and sleeps on the far side of the mattress? When she wakes up in the morning and never speaks to her mate.
What does this say about the Marriage?
https://open.substack.com/pub/movingtorussia/p/sexual-restraint-helps-cultures-flourish?r=6csnm&utm_medium=ios
https://open.substack.com/pub/fiamengofile/p/are-women-the-biggest-losers-of-the?r=6csnm&utm_medium=ios
And my next post is up! It was up this morning, but I was busy :)
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/the-death-of-monogamy-definitions
My response is almost done... maybe Saturday, probably Tuesday, maybe Thursday if I get really bogged down. But in the meantime, does this chart work?
https://substack.com/profile/10674706-von/note/c-51230407?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=6csnm