 |
| PearlBlueSoul |
on Wed 8 Feb 12, 9:21 PM to PearlBlueSoul's blog.
Another excellent book melding economic perspective with human behaviour. Much like The Winner-Take-All Society and The Economic Naturalist, it's becoming obvious that those who're able to blend economic rigour with a lack of formalism are some of the most valuable observers of the modern world.
Anyway. You should read it. It launches straight into its eponymous topic: chastity is a form of pollution, contrary to its supposed rep. Here's the thing - even though the self-reported consensus of our society is that promiscuity is bad, mmmmkay, and self-restraint is good, mmmmkay, it's nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy that leaves everyone in a worse-off place. The idea that promiscuity is wrong removes those people from casual sex that would actually make the best of it, i.e. those people that tend to be the most considerate, stable and conscientious are removed from the communal stream. Meanwhile, the douchebags and idiots that grab everything for themselves and pass all the costs on to everyone else, these people are going to be having casual sex regardless of how much advice there is to the opposite. And thus, the whole thing becomes a needlessly radioactive minefield of idiocy and disproportionately troublesome consequences, when the act itself isn't to blame; it's the fault of the short-sighted impositions of the tutting crusaders and aloof moralists who're pathologically averse to the idea of any kind of healthy middle-ground. It means that people who may be awesome at casual sex (i.e. ME! Ha ha) are undervalued, and hence undersupplied. Great work, monogamy. Such a goddamn monster.
Sure, you can find some downsides to this outlook. But, jeeeeesus, I find it way harder to disagree with than the opposite approach.
The same applies to such concerns as the spread of disease. In a monogamous society, well, people suck at being monogamous yet it's very difficult for them to express the fact. And so, we have myriad affairs, one-night stands and other release valves that are potentially destructive despite them fulfilling whatever needs a monogamous setup is no longer sating. This aspect of people is pushed further underground, making it a greater vector for disease, thanks to such acts being sidelined as illegitimate, grubby and secretive. As someone once pointed out, if everyone could have two partners, things would initially be more difficult and more complex, but people are ace at responding to and coping with such things, and we'd settle into something far stronger; we're left with a society that's much more at home with itself. Although, it's a society that cannot grow with such exponential abandon, which must be one of the key agendas of monogamy.
There's a reason why we need the goofy stalker-vocab of romance to paper over the glaring downsides of such ill-fitting and strenuous presumptions as those made by monogamy. It's for the same reason we have air freshener in the toilet - so that we can pretend that we don't stink.
| 9 Feb 12, 7:57 AM crystaltips UK(S), 5 yrs |
If you are not monogamous, why limit yourself to 2 partners? I feel a bit of a fraud because I have suddenly found myself monogamous and actually quite baffled that after 30 years of being very bad at having only one partner, I am suddenly more than satisfied with the one I have now. So two years ago, I would have been agreeing with most of what you say (I still do I suppose, just not for me at this point in my life) but when I was actively poly, I never limited myself to just 2 partners so I was curious about that bit. |
| 9 Feb 12, 8:53 AM PearlBlueSoul UK(EC), 2 yrs |
You're not limiting yourself to two partners. It's just an illustration, is all. Have as many as you want. I'm entirely behind polygamy, despite my life likely playing out in entirely monogamous fashion. Polygamy permits one partner per person as a valid option, and asks you to find your own contentment; monogamy outlaws everything but itself, and refuses to accept any view of contentment but its own. It's the definition of a no-brainer, really. |
