Is Monogamy Realistic?

Originally Posted by ShardaSuresh

Nandu ... Deepawali patas vadikyara mood la erakiya. (Are you in the mood for some fireworks). This is a great topic.

Hehehe..

winter is dull.. Atleast IL sila vedi kozhuthi podalaame nu thaan konjam interestinga irukume

Woman all over the world tend to be monogamous. I don't know if it is our upbringing or just the hormones, we are content with what we get

hmm.. I guess more than women or men, it depends on the individual? I have seem both sexes in different relationships and it's more to what one's believe in or be comfortable with I guess..

There is this movie called "whatever works".. such a fun movie.. Few relationships in that movie

(1) Christian mother - Now, in polygamy
(2) Christian father - Now happily gay
(3) Divorced at 50 - Now happily married.
(4) Runaway 16 yr girl, married to divorcee at 50 - Now happily married to a 25 yr old guy,

The thing is end of the day, whatever works for us is what we would like to have - For some monogamous relationship, other affair included, other polygamy etc.. and even for some being a monk or nun, we never know right

I also believe that men are more prone to stray than woman.

Fireworks started huh

I guess some might come after this generalization.. (love to see 'em) let's see

Personally, I believe that monogamy is realistic, but fidelity is not. I think we all have thoughts of being with some other person, for many of us these thoughts remain just that, for some it gets converted into action.

Did you mean infidelity? I am confused.

Originally Posted by knot2share

I too believe that human beings are not born to be monogamous, but we choose to be so for several valid reasons as outlined in the above CNN article.

Interesting.. why?

Because our ancestors are chimps? I would like to hear from you more on this if you don't mind.

What does it mean when we say that men tend to stray more than women?
When men stray, whom to do they go to? A Woman. So aren't they both equally straying?

Hehehe..

True.. but that's just one possibility in the equation right..

(1) it could be another man
(2) The woman might not be married

I think women had lot more social pressure and expectation and duty to the society dumped on them which forced them to have more control over their feelings. Men excercised their free will. Do you think that if the concept of polyamory was taken in with a bit more open mind, it would actually help in strengthening monogamy further down the line and make it sustain longer??

Interesting thought. Maybe it will, may be not with the legal partner they started out with

Or

I feel people would find polyamory unfulfilling at some stage and would revert back to the place where they feel safe and can be trusted (which is where they started off with). Some people possibly need an external influence to make them realise what they have with them is the best or atleast will be able to revive the old relation........Just thinking out loud here. Please tell me what you feel about this too.

Thank you.

As you said, it's like "Oh well, the pasture I started with is greener "

Or may be it's just a wild adventure. One life - Lead it as you want..

Are people happy changing spouses frequently ? It seems that they keep looking for love and when they become jaded they look for spice . An extramarital affair has the thrill and excitement as its forbidden and gives the pair a high. If its given sanction ,it will lose namak and become bland.

Long back PLato had advocated a society without marriages but it did not have any takers.
Monogamy is realistic thats why its still surviving . Even men who can legally marry more than one women rarely do so.
Has any survey been conducted on the children of families (!) having several step ,ex-mothers and fathers ?

Originally Posted by Nandshyam

Since you mentioned how can religion preach 2 things. Are we supposed to understand and follow what is best? Meaning, all our hindu Gods have more than one partners, but monogamy is preached to the follower?

This is a huge topic by itself and hence can be the subject matter of a separate new thread or else this will digress the issue under discussion. But for the moment I would like to put before you an appropriate analogy as I understand it.

Assume for a moment that the objective of a feature film is to promote a central message (whatever it may be) to its viewers. The narrative of the film could be highly unrealistic and fictitious; but nevertheless conveys its message very effectively.

However some of us may lose sight of its message and instead dwell upon the characters in the movies and set about to imitate them. Then nothing significant will be gained.

Hindu culture has given us broad guidelines for right living - Sruthis or Eternal Values. The wise sages of yore explained it by drawing analogies from the lives of people of those eras and perhaps even taking poetic liberties in exaggerating to over-emphasize the importance of righteous living and the consequences thereof if disregarded. These teachings were propagated through stories, a very popular medium to drive home the truths.

Thus was born mythology as everything revolved around myths (fictitious stories) created with a great purpose.Their main objectives were to draw pictures before the minds of the society and ensure harmony and a sense of justice built into the psyche of the denizens through a series of stories or myths - the reality of which could never be authenticated though it conveyed the ideas. We must take the relevant teachings and follow them, and leave the rest which are unessential.

However once the guidelines were given the communities were free draw up and develop their own customs and social laws as it suited their times but keeping in tune with these basic and essential value system of dharmic living. These were known as Smrithis.

The shastras point out that Sruthis will ever remain constant even as smrithis will keep ever-changing, adapting, and evolving with the civilization suiting the times.

This perhaps explains the innumerable customs and traditions of India spread over so many communities with over (as they say) 33 crore gods.

Pradeep

Monogamy is a cultivated tradition - a trait more influenced by religious and other social canons over time. Human beings are by nature polygamous, which perhaps explains the plethora of laws and regulations that either wants to restrict or curb his/her natural inclinations.

But polyamory or swapping or swinging or FWB does not in any way mean indiscriminate, unrestricted, incompatible or reckless sexual orgies. It is none of these and is a misnomer. The real spotlight still remains on the couple who venture into this lifestyle only to pep up their own personal life which on the physical plane would have reached a rigid and helpless state of monotony and ennui/boredom. This may happen anytime after marriage or 'living together'. And despite their marriage being very strong at a personal level lacks the very essential spice. This concept is more of a therapy than anything else.

It is like this: A connoisseur of (say) excellent food and wine may seek other dining tables just to get away (for a while) from the routine though delicious fare he/she gets at home and have some variety. S/he however does not linger here for too long and soon enough returns home with greater enthusiasm to indulge in his/her tastes. This adds a zing to an otherwise dull routine of cooking and serving. It invariably translates into a very enriching and worthwhile experience. Otherwise it's like establishing an unfair rule that "one must eat only at one's home and nowhere else!!"

But too much of outside food is also not healthy. Though occasional (defined subjectively) indulgence outside (opening up) is a positive and healthy experience.

This idea may be too much of a taboo to discuss, atleast openly; though in reality this land of kamasutra and tantra can teach the "liberal" and "promiscuous" West a thing or two. Our society is no stranger to all these practices except that we would rather prefer to keep all this under wraps.

The dangers could be that one may become addicted with outside food or make unfair comparisons with home prepared food. Both pitfalls can be avoided if one knows the limits within which one has to operate and where his/her heart lies truly.

This is my take after an extensive research on the net. My wish is that we share our views in a friendly manner (avoid personal attacks or casting of aspersions even if you have to disagree) in a healthy way without too much of digression away from the topic under discussion.

Pradeep.

Nands you have touched on a controversial topic.
Hats off to you for the guts. I too believe monogamy is not that easy. But it was created by our society for best reasons. So we see now men/women having affairs but still not ready to commit.
I enjoyed psd 1955 fb. We know in India either the rich or poor will have more than one partners. While the middle class struggles to hide the affairs. Here we feel compelled by the society. I know you are talking abt poly.... . I believe in west the affairs has become poly... in the society.

But in India it is still long way to go.We here are catching up in divorce and extra marital affairs (though it existed before). Current society where we both sex mingle possiblity of poly... exist (both sex having difft partners).

Due to our upbringing sex is not physical act but an act of love. Again for many it is a physical act. If one views sex as act of love we willfind it difficult to change partners.
Iam getting confused now, due to our upbringing monogamy is prevalent, while some are ready to move from that. Iam not sure whether poly is applicable to all.
Jaya

I presume that all of us on IL are very mature adults who need not be told what is good or bad for them. We all need a little more patience with each other and tolerance for each other's views.

Yes, it was sad that Lini's thread was closed prematurely. But anyway that is in the past now. Let us respect the moderator's decision.

Looking back I now feel it would have anyway veered to this very topic in this thread. In a way thanks to Nandu who unwittingly helped us in fast-forwarding the whole debate.

I am afraid if we keep on closing threads like these then the authorities may take the cue and may pass a law banning sex altogether. So let us beware!!!


Pradeep

I agree with Pradeep, we are all mature adults. I did not read the other thread, so wont make any comparisons.

But I don't want this thread moderated for the following reasons,

1. Though a mature topic, the content is clean
2. There is no bad comment against any particular religion, culture or society

The truth is even in India, relationships exist outside marriage. Most of us know of at least one relationship where a partner is cheating on the other. Deep down we are not comfortable with this fact and all of us wish it would not happen to us.

So what is wrong in knowing why people cheat or how common it is in a marriage.

Lets not have Gandhari attitude, and be more open to learn more about extra marital affairs.

lini

let us keep this thread alive by not mixing up issues of a closed thread.

one of us or a senior ilite can start a new thread where activities that lead to CLOSURE OF A THREAD can be discussed, analysed, debated.

ground rules can be set, process, policy, procedures can be set up.

my point as i had raised in lini's previous thread is that one person can not decide to close a thread. there should be a panel to which a thread should be referred to and then a decision taken.

i am not on lini's or nandu's side. there should be a solution, a transparent system.

but lini, i woudn't take nandu's comment in a wrong sense.

when i read it, i understood as - "don't jump into this thread with the same aggression as earlier, let's discuss in a polished approach".

i request you to participate actively in this thread.

After some refection I feel that an ideal relationship is akin to a beautiful tapestry woven from the threads of true selfless and unconditional love.

A genuine relationship is not limited in any way. It is an aberration to seal it by a formally defined term like "marriage' which is only reflective of the unwelcome patchwork done to hide the ugly tears in an otherwise exquisite tapestry of an ideal relationship.

It is perhaps this highest ideal that prompted the likes of Plato or Osho to view marriage as an ugly aberration and advocate a marriage-free society.

Radha and Krishna are symbolised as an ideal couple full of grace and beauty, perhaps symbolizing this very concept that a true relationship goes beyond all limitations and definitions. Were Radha and Krishna ever married? (I would like to know). However only in such an ideally great relationship far from falling in love we can cross boundaries and truly rise in love by living in love forever.

Pradeep