Best Relationship Configuration Poll

[Magrat]

What counts as "actually doing it"? What are your criteria? In fact, what are your criteria for all your categories?

Heterosexual monogamy would be most adults being in opposite sex marriage like relationships with very few to no divorces or infidelity.

Homosexual monogamy is the same thing with the same sex.

Homo or hetero monogamy would be that but a random distribution of hetero and homosexual couples.

Polygyny is most men having multiple wives to whom they are faithful.

Polyandry is most women having multiple husband to whom they are faithful.

Multiple partners for both sex would be most adults have sexual relationships with people of the same or opposite sex that last for any amount of time.

All of these imply the acceptance of the system by most of the people living in it.

 

[Loss Leader]

Largely because those same societies have repressed and legislated the sexuality of half the population, in order to "protect" land inheritance.

I would disagree. For the longest time, inheritances might only pass to the oldest son. In fact, it's as old as the bible - Jacob tricks Isaac into giving him the blessing meant for his oldest son. And it's as new as the 1800's. See the number of famous clergy and academics who only went into their professions because they were the younger sibling. That has nothing to do with sexuality.

For that matter, any prohibition against women owning land swung wildly between nations and time periods. See this list of women's property rights since antiquity. Women could and did inherit land in Europe throughout history up to now.

One also must be cognizant of the fact that, for most Europeans, the concept of "owning" land didn't exist. Serfs (and then tenant farmers) controlled a farmable portion of their Lord/Lady's estate. Inheritances tend to be divided between siblings and the subdivided by the next generation and the next. If a single family farm were so divided, in two generations you'd have twenty families each standing inside property that could support one.

There are a whole lot of reasons women have been treated unequally in history. I don't think real estate is the thing to pin it on.

 

[p0lka]

I voted other, whatever floats your boat as long as it is between consenting adults.

Making sure the relationship works for everyone is the important thing.

 

[Magrat]

I would disagree. For the longest time, inheritances might only pass to the oldest son. In fact, it's as old as the bible - Jacob tricks Isaac into giving him the blessing meant for his oldest son. And it's as new as the 1800's. See the number of famous clergy and academics who only went into their professions because they were the younger sibling. That has nothing to do with sexuality.

For that matter, any prohibition against women owning land swung wildly between nations and time periods. See this list of women's property rights since antiquity. Women could and did inherit land in Europe throughout history up to now.

One also must be cognizant of the fact that, for most Europeans, the concept of "owning" land didn't exist. Serfs (and then tenant farmers) controlled a farmable portion of their Lord/Lady's estate. Inheritances tend to be divided between siblings and the subdivided by the next generation and the next. If a single family farm were so divided, in two generations you'd have twenty families each standing inside property that could support one.

There are a whole lot of reasons women have been treated unequally in history. I don't think real estate is the thing to pin it on.

What I was referring to is the issue of paternity. You wouldn't want some other man's son inheriting your property, so women were not allowed the same sexual freedoms men took for granted. Men in both times you mentioned could visit protitutes, and also had multiple wives in Jacob's time. Women haven't ever had that kind of freedom to have sex with whomever they wanted in Western societies, and still today will be called a slut.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What I was referring to is the issue of paternity. You wouldn't want some other man's son inheriting your property, so women were not allowed the same sexual freedoms men took for granted. Men in both times you mentioned could visit protitutes, and also had multiple wives in Jacob's time. Women haven't ever had that kind of freedom to have sex with whomever they wanted in Western societies, and still today will be called a slut.

Agreed entirely. And one bias I've always had and never could overcome was that I always needed to be the one to initiate stuff early in a relation and was put off by someone coming on too strong to me. Jerk.

.... Wait a minute, I was just minding my own business, and now suddenly I am in some internet thread fessing up to jerkhood? What's going on here? Think I'll sue ISF or something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Heterosexual monogamy would be most adults being in opposite sex marriage like relationships with very few to no divorces or infidelity.

There has never been a society of any appreciable size with no infidelity, just like there has never been a society of any appreciable size with no murder. That says nothing about the desirability of either. And what counts as "few"?

Homosexual monogamy is the same thing with the same sex.

That sounds very... fictitious.

Polygyny is most men having multiple wives to whom they are faithful.

The math can't work for that. The closest you can get in the real world is a large fraction of men with multiple wives. You could, in principle, even have most men who are married having multiple wives, but then you'll have a large fraction (around half or more) with no wives at all.

Polyandry is most women having multiple husband to whom they are faithful.

Same as above.

All of these imply the acceptance of the system by most of the people living in it.

As above in regard to "few", what counts as "most"? 75%? 90%? 99%?

 

[Dancing David]

Time for the next RK poll. This one partly inspired by the book I'm reading, Sex at Dawn by Ryan and Jethà.

I am not asking for an argument over social conditions. What I would like to know is, what type of social relationships do you believe humans are most suited for? Are we like our close cousins the bonobos, and suited for multiple partners? Or are we correctly pushed towards heterosexual monogamy per the Catholic church? Or shades between? I'm listing some options but because I am only one Kitten and can't predict every possibility, please feel free to add "other"s.

I think many people prefer serial monogamy but there is no real preference.

 

[Magrat]

There has never been a society of any appreciable size with no infidelity, just like there has never been a society of any appreciable size with no murder. That says nothing about the desirability of either. And what counts as "few"?



That sounds very... fictitious.



The math can't work for that. The closest you can get in the real world is a large fraction of men with multiple wives. You could, in principle, even have most men who are married having multiple wives, but then you'll have a large fraction (around half or more) with no wives at all.



Same as above.



As above in regard to "few", what counts as "most"? 75%? 90%? 99%?

Your first paragraph is debatable..what is "of any size"?

Also, define infidelity. There are many societies that are (or were, if they don't exist anymore) tolerant of liaisons outside of marriage, and also many who never had marriage at all and everybody slept with whomever they liked.

Polygyny: what the Mormon church taught as acceptable and was outlawed by the us government.

Polyandry: the reverse.

These aren't obscure terms my friend. I don't know how else to define them for you.

 

[Magrat]

I think many people prefer serial monogamy but there is no real preference.

I believe you're probably correct, but I haven't done a real "study", just observation.

 

[Loss Leader]

What I was referring to is the issue of paternity. You wouldn't want some other man's son inheriting your property, so women were not allowed the same sexual freedoms men took for granted. Men in both times you mentioned could visit protitutes, and also had multiple wives in Jacob's time. Women haven't ever had that kind of freedom to have sex with whomever they wanted in Western societies, and still today will be called a slut.

I don't think any of that has actually ever stopped women from cheating. I don't even think it has changed the percentage of women who cheat.

If you have a source that states otherwise, I would love to examine it.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Currently the answer to your poll is irrelevant, we control and understand our reproduction to such an extent that the actual sexual relations are no longer needed.

Evolutionary apparently it was fine to have the majority be heterosexual with a large percentage being other sexual, as with most social mammals.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your first paragraph is debatable..what is "of any size"?

You left out "appreciable", but let's say one million people, for the sake of simplicity.

Also, define infidelity.

No. YOU are the one who decided infidelity was part of your definition of monogamy, not me. YOU define it.

Polygyny: what the Mormon church taught as acceptable and was outlawed by the us government.

But that's not the definition you gave. The definition you gave was not about the acceptability of polygamy, but about its prevalence. Given that your definition of monogamy was based on its prevalence as well (requiring almost universal adherence), your shift here is significant.

These aren't obscure terms my friend. I don't know how else to define them for you.

I know they aren't obscure, but you objected to my use of "monogamy" on the grounds that you meant it in a very narrow sense, so YOUR precise meaning for each of these terms is relevant. The fact that you've already changed your working definition of polygyny is an an example of the problem of not defining your terms well.

 

[Magrat]

You left out "appreciable", but let's say one million people, for the sake of simplicity.



No. YOU are the one who decided infidelity was part of your definition of monogamy, not me. YOU define it.



But that's not the definition you gave. The definition you gave was not about the acceptability of polygamy, but about its prevalence. Given that your definition of monogamy was based on its prevalence as well (requiring almost universal adherence), your shift here is significant.



I know they aren't obscure, but you objected to my use of "monogamy" on the grounds that you meant it in a very narrow sense, so YOUR precise meaning for each of these terms is relevant. The fact that you've already changed your working definition of polygyny is an an example of the problem of not defining your terms well.

I didn't change anything. I think you might be reading too much into this.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't change anything. I think you might be reading too much into this.

Yes you did.

Polygyny is most men having multiple wives to whom they are faithful.

Polygyny: what the Mormon church taught as acceptable and was outlawed by the us government.

These are not the same definition. And the difference is directly relevant to your assertion that a society can claim to be monogamous without actually being monogamous.

 

[Magrat]

Yes you did.




These are not the same definition. And the difference is directly relevant to your assertion that a society can claim to be monogamous without actually being monogamous.

Okay. I am not so interested in the results of this non scientific poll to continue arguing about the definitions of the terms. It's just for fun and curiosity, so no worries.

 

[mgidm86]

Didn't vote.

There is no way humans, in general, are "meant" to have a single sexual partner. This is very clear, to me, statistically, and in many other ways.

People wouldn't cheat so much if it wasn't a natural tendency to do so. The church, and perhaps other aspects of society, have forced people to live under some puritanical ideological fantasy that humans should form life long bonds with each other.

At the same time, I'd like one woman to be with for the remainder of my life. It gets tiresome meeting people and going through all that. But I don't know if I've just been brainwashed by society to want that, or if it's what I truly desire. You get older, you wanna settle down maybe.

Throw kids into the mix and that all changes, I suppose. I don't have any so it doesn't affect me.

 

[Ziggurat]

People wouldn't cheat so much if it wasn't a natural tendency to do so.

To paraphrase Ms. Manners, people shouldn't act natural, they should act civilized.

 

[Upchurch]

That sounds very... fictitious.

Well, that's a thing you said. Does it mean that you believe that homosexual monogamy is a thing of fiction, as in that it doesn't happen?

That sounds very...

What's the word?

 

[Loss Leader]

At the same time, I'd like one woman to be with for the remainder of my life. It gets tiresome meeting people and going through all that. But I don't know if I've just been brainwashed by society to want that, or if it's what I truly desire.

What we (and many primate species) appear from the evidence to want is the stability and support of a single mate with a little strange on the side. This is true of both males and females. It also appears that adultery can hurt the emotional bond in a relationship so everybody just lies to each other and keeps it hidden.

Any given individual may differ. The above is a broad generalization.

 

[bruto]

I put "some other thing" because I think the mixture of biological and social is too complicated. I think monogamy, serial or otherwise, is likely the best relationship configuration for most of us in most of the times and places we are living in. Maybe even the best altogether, but societies change, and inclination, taste, social pressure, education, and other things change.