![[ The Hunger Site Donate Free Food ]](../images/hungerbanner.gif)
It is my contention that monogamy is one mate for life.
Note: If you're easily offended, then please skip down to Further Reading.
The Oxford American Dictionary defines monogamy as the
The system of being married to only one person at a time.
The definition currently in use for monogamy is, roughly
one mate a time
Common usage: 'always been monogamous' translates to 'never cheated,' which in turn translates to 'never had relations with someone else while dating (going steady with) a person.'
However, if monogamy is one mate at a time, then, at what point does a person become not monogamous, if at all?
Is a person monogamous if he or she has changed mates within:
It is my contention that there is fundamentally no difference between items A, B, C, D, E, F, nor G, but that there is a difference only between A-G, and H.
To further illustrate, in the Islamic tradition, it is discouraged that one take more than one wife. It is preferable to only have one, but if one should choose to have a second, third, or nth, then one must treat all of them equally. This does apply to meeting physical, or sexual, needs. That means if one has seven wives, one must spend one night per week with each of them. This is polygamous1, even offensive, to most readers. Regardless, there is one day between mates in this situation... So if your answer to the question above say, was 'C. Three Days', then you also consider that the man with two wives in an Islamic society to be monogamous. Presently, it is not uncommon for individuals to change mates within three weeks.
1 In my opinion, it should be clear, that there is no difference between serial monogamy and polygamy. E.g. It is quite 'normal' to get back together with an old boyfriend or girlfriend after having had relations with another person. See the popular TV show Friends for examples.
When asked, 'why study history,' a history professor has a likely answer. That answer is a well known one, and I do not quote it here. However, I do mention it because there is little respect for the past among the most of the members of my generation... perhaps this is the result of the assumption that society always moves forward? Things are always getting better? Arrogance, anyone?
Food for thought: Are you aware that immediately after industrialization people actually worked more hours, or had less leisure time, were paid less, and had shorter lifespans in comparison to pre-industrialization?
To get back to the point, there are institutions that have survived for thousands of years because they serve a function (e.g. prostitution). In other words, they work. And though no one can be certain about the rationale or origins of these institutions, the fact that they worked for their respective societies is a given. I will not elaborate further.
Soap box: We do not live more than a hundred and score years, so we simply do not have time to 'learn from our mistakes.' Learn from the mistakes of our predecessors, or, rather, from the things they did right. 10,000 years is a long time compared to 120. And half of us have far less time than that to mate.
At some point in history, every major civilization, even this one, had, or agreed upon, an, idea of monogamy. It is true that not everyone in the respective civilizations participated [in monogamy], but most did. But what is monogamy? Or, rather, what was it?
The dictionary definition is a good place to start, suprisingly. Definitions change less in books, especially dictionaries, over time than in the context of societies. The others in the list below are typical of older or, generally considered in this time and place, 'backwards' societies.
Given
I can only conclude from the above that the original concept, that is to say, the idea of monogamy predominant throughout ( ( (10,000-80) / 10,000 ) * 100 ) percent of the history of human civilization was:
One mate for life
Feminist BS has unfortunately brainwashed nearly a whole generation of women, and many men, into believing that, up until today, women have been oppressed by men at all times and at all places. I, for one, seriously doubt this. Women have had and will always have enormous value, for one, at the very least because they have the ability to create life...
Disney et al, has brainwashed generations of men and women into believing that the foundation of a lifelong relationship is romantic love. Consider that it has been shown that feelings, on average, last approximately two years in marriage (perhaps this is why many women remarry every three years?). Why base a relationship on something (a feeling) that is guaranteed to not last? But what is the alternative? 'Backwards' ideas include that two people should be committed to each other first, even before they get to know one another, and that love will grow out of that commitment.
Soap box: How would you feel if you knew that the person you were with would never leave you no matter what? And this is the most superficial aspect of commitment. It is my opinion that love cannot help but grow out of a RealTM commitment.
The word of the day is 'compatibility.' Meet two perfectly compatible people, or, in other words, two people who have the same exact wants and needs.
What I'm saying is 'compatibility' isn't all that important. But, again, what is the alternative? 'Backwards' ideas include, put the other person's needs before your own, and you will both be happy, regardless of how 'compatible' you are.
Note: compatibility is important, but not in terms of personalities. Though having initially compatible personalities undoubtedly helps, to reiterate, this is almost always short term or transient. What absolutely must be compatible are your answers to the following question: 'What do you believe about relationships?'
2 Are you aware that the poor, in this country, consists primarily of single women and their children? (The rest consists of the mentally ill).
What does 'responsible' with regards to sex mean today? What did it mean not too long ago, even in this country? The answer to the first question is, 'with a condom.' The answer to the second is, 'within the confines of marriage.' Given the latter, how does the use of a condom miraculously make a person 'responsible?' Even adolescents can use condoms. Are they 'responsible?'
Food for thought: Fewer and fewer people of all ages are able to delay gratification. The ability to delay gratification was at one time considered to be a sign of maturity.
What are the consequences of serial monogamy? Current norms allow relations between friends, particularly between friends who were once 'dating.' I saw an old friend at B&N, and he was waiting on a [blind] date. He mentioned how he and his ex-girlfriend were still friends, 'with benefits.' Will he tell his date? No. This is very common. What are the consequences for him, his 'friend,' and his future girlfriend(s)? Until I heard this, I thought he was one of the 'good guys.'
I feel it would be wrong not to mention a 'fun fact' regarding cohabitation. Couples who cohabitate are not likely to get married. Couples who cohabitate prior to getting married are much more likely to get divorced than couples who did not cohabitate. There are theories regarding why this is the case, but I suspect that it is due to the difference between 'commitment,' common usage, and RealTM commitment.
The fall of every major civilization has been first marked by the breakdown of the family, the fundamental social unit of any society.
That said, each of my biological parents, at the time of the writing of this article, have been married three times apiece. You'd think they were competing. On the other hand, my grandparents, produced seven children including my mother, who in turn are successful and have families of their own. Not one of my uncles or aunts, who by the way reside in a 'backwards' nation, are divorced. My grandfather died some years ago, but it was, indeed, a 'till death do you part' deal for my grandparents. My grandmother does not plan to remarry. But why is it important to me? I have two younger half-siblings... I cannot imagine how many children have suffered, presently suffer, and will suffer, as a result of the currently popular institution of 'dating,' and the ideas propagated by it. It is my belief that our children do pay for our sins, for our selfishness, for our desire of instant gratification... The bottom line is
I do not have the luxury of not having to think.
![[ Best Viewed With Any Browser ]](../images/anybro.gif)