Love, Liberty and Sex.

Ok,

so,


Back to our discussion about monogamy/polygamy

I want to address Teri's comments from the "Under the Moonlight..." post.

Teri said...
In my extremely unscientific, stereotypical, and biased opinion (although there is lots of scientific evidence to support it), by nature women seem to tend more toward monogamy, and men toward multiple partners. This is absolutely true. These seemingly opposing strategies actually create the optimal situation for propagation of the species: Men are driven to fertilize as many eggs as possible, while women are driven to create a secure "home" with a reliable "provider" to ensure the welfare of her offspring. It can lead to animosities between Men and Women, but it's a great plan for the species as a whole.


Evolutionarily and biologically this makes sense in terms of parental investment. Now, ‘marriage’ is a societal institution, mostly outdated, but even without its existence people tend to gravitate toward some form of partnering. Once again, I agree. The "gravitation" is the pull of our genitals being pulled toward one another by our future offspring as they gather at the exit doors of the Astral Plane.

I studied relationships and marriage in depth in my anthropology classes, and learned that even in societies where everyone is raised to believe that polygyny is the norm, that the women continue to be jealous of their husbands’ affection for his other wives even though the presence of other women means less work for them. Not to mention there are no known polyandrous societies, as far as I know. How surprising. : ) In some societies there are group marriages and alternating marriages that seem to work pretty well for both partners, but even in those there is a very established, understood commitment (marriage) between the various members, so one could say that that is also a form of ‘possession’. Anyway, the point of my rambling is that I see this “utopia” as being more of a utopia for men, not for women. I also fail to see how commitments or agreements equal an attempt to possess. But perhaps I’m missing your point. I think you have missed the point a bit. I am not interested in having 5 wives any more than I am interested in 1. I also find that "polyamorous" relationships with "primary partners" is just some silly swinger bullshit with a better lexicon. One aspect of my point is that most of what we have just mentioned regarding natural (concious/unconcious reproduction driven) human sexuality, is pretty much the same thing that makes any other animal seek out a mate. Most of what you see in a bar on a Saturday night is the same thing you'd see in the forest in the Spring. I am arguing that we can aim beyond that. We can overcome jealousy and arrive at a strange shore where people, freed from the sexual repression of monogamy, can short-circuit the quid pro qou of the capitalistic commodification of objectified female bodies traded for the promise of "love" from a "good man". In this brave new world, a man could find his true heart (and maybe decide to be in a long term monogamous relationship) and understand his emotions as he will not be distracted by his unsatisfied drives. In this Golden Eden, a woman would have as many providers as there are men in the community (paternal bloodlines would be indecipherable in such an orgiastic community and "the children" would become "ours" communally and not "ours" personally) and would no longer need to possess a man to care for her children and could likewise choose as many lovers as her red mind could dream.

Once again - big point here - I am not saying "monogamy is wrong". I really do think that kick ass concious people can get it together with true style and integrity and make babies and live long and prosper til death do they part. I am just saying that most of what usually motivates this is very base and beastial and I don't want the little lizard in the back of my head to make my decisions for me and I feel a special intolerance for people who act on the advice of their brainstems and then expect me to treat it as a sacred union between twin souls. I'm workin' on it. :)

Ok,

so,

now,

a few words from Jack Parsons:

Therefore lift up your hearts saying, "I am a man" or "I am a woman, and the Power of Life is mine!" And in the Power of Life you shall live and love, accepting no restriction and placing no restriction, freely and granting freedom. And it may be in the bounty of life you shall see the love of life shine in the eyes of another, and the lust of life burn upon his brow, and thus you shall take great joy together. And it may be in good fortune you may find a number such; and share your joy in secret feasting and rejoicing and all manner of lovemaking and festival....And this is well so long as you remember one thing. There can be no restriction. The Power of Life is not restricted; it knows its own way, but no mind knows that way. Therefore in yourself practice all the giving and taking of freedom that is consistent with life, for thereby alone can you remain in our joy. Pain is. Terror is, loss and loneliness and agony of heart and spirit, even unto Death. For this is the gateway to the kingdom of Pan.


If you are reading this, please take a second to comment and add to this discussion.


Only the humble believe that love is all you need.

Be humble in your sleepy hands on this world.

Be a Killer in Heaven.

Love, Joe Nolan