Showing posts with label Polyamory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polyamory. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2018

The Downfalls Of a Poly Society

A poly society will require a more vigilant public health system, a more active security stated to protect its citizens—especially women—and a more aggressive social welfare system, since invested fathers will continue to recede. Misogyny is embedded in polyamory, too, however “ethical” it claims to be. That’s because sexual objectification—the treatment of persons as objects—is unavoidable in a non-monogamous system, especially a modern one characterized less by plural marriage than by the serial circulation of multiple, over-lapping sex partners.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.183

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Monogamy is BEST for Society

…monogamous arrangements comprise a historical minority of the globe’s societies, but the vast majority of the more successful and flourishing ones.  Monogamous marriage…fosters savings and economic output, and reduces competition among men for women, which functions to reduce the pool of low-status, risk-oriented, unmarried men. (It reduces competition not through sex-ratio manipulation, but through normative expectations of one partner.) And that, in turn, lowers multiple types of crime, abuse, household conflict, and fosters greater paternal investment in both their work and in their children, who are more apt to enjoy their attention and exhibit notably lower stress levels than in households displaying all manner of outsiders. Speaking of outsiders, a review of data from 69 polygamous societies from around the world failed to reveal a single case where the relationships between a man’s partners or wives could be described as consistently harmonious.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.181-182

Monday, August 13, 2018

No One Needs Multiple Partners

[P]eople “need” multiple partners like they need four houses or six automobiles. These are wants, not needs. And when seemingly reasonable people argue that in previous eras people didn’t live so long, such that the death of a spouse functioned as a way for humans to fulfill their “need for sexual variety” it pays to be skeptical. (Since when did golden anniversaries become something to pity rather than something to celebrate?).  No, the new turn away from monogamy was made possible not because we figured out that we are still animals but because we figured out how to effectively prevent pregnancies or end them prematurely, freeing us up to pursue the art of sexuality—the body as a tool of consumption rather than production.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.179