So much of what we

So much of what we do can be, (and is!) interpreted as “crazy” by other individuals. Exhibit A: How many times a year/month/week do you hear this phrase: “It would have worked out, except for the fact that… he/she was CRAZY.”

I realize that this probably applies to myself even more so than other individuals. Perhaps I am crazy. I will begin a trend here of posting things about me that are often percieved as crazy by other people.

Crazy factor 1: I will not enter a monogamous relationship.

I feel that monogamy is yet another social convention accepted by the masses out of sheer convenience. We are not monogamous animals. There are actually human sperm that have evolved for the sole purpose of attacking other human sperm! That proves that biologically we are not monogamous.

I have relented a bit in my stance that nobody is meant to be monogamous. I have had convincing conversations with a suficient numbers of people over the years who feel that they are soley monogamous creatures, and could not bear for themselves the idea of attraction to more than one individual. This is simmilar to my former opinion that everyone is merely shades of bisexual. I realize now that there are individuals so far off the “scale” that there is nothing left to do but call them fully homosexual or heterosexual.

Maybe someday soon I’ll post about crazy factor #2: I cannot abide the word “faith”, and I have a strong disapproval of religious institutions of all kinds.

3 Replies to “So much of what we”

  1. So, when you say “biologically, we are or are not X, Y, Z…” the hidden assumption is that this is a meaningful statement. When X, Y and Z are super-complicated cultural behaviors, I would question that assumption very very closely. Even from a purely anatomical perspective, culture can have a huge influence on developing brains via dietary effects or whatever.

    The existence of sperm-killing sperm tells us only that women are sometimes unfaithful. It says little about how often this happens – even a very small reproductive advantage can lead to great changes in the genome – and it says *absolutely nothing* about whether the unfaithfulness is the result of real polyamory and not, say, rape by an unattached male. You can’t just run around making biological “proofs” for rampant nonmonogamy without providing more, well, proof.

    And the hidden implication is that we ought to accept our biological inclinations, because we cannot hope to overcome them. Nonsense.

    There are lots of perfectly good philosophical arguments in favor of polyamory, and I know in your case there are lots of excellent personal arguments as well – why not give those instead?

    Tue 17:31

  2. hmm. how did I not see this response before?

    I think you’re totally right about the sperm argument. I hadn’t really thought about the rape scenario. I don’t know if that’s to my credit or if it’s just another example of my lack of creative thought.

    Either way, it’s still an interesting phenomenon, and I think it has the potential to spell out another chicken-egg scenario in regards to social structures influencing biology, or perhaps vice versa. (Even if, as you say, it may have less to do with polyamory.)

    There is only one thing you’ve said above that I think I would take up arms with, and that’s that you think we have every opportunity to “overcome” our biological inclinations–and the further implication that it’s perfectly fine to do so. On some levels, this is obviously possible. (For the moment, I’ll keep the argument within the realm of social decisions influenced by biology.) We can obviously choose any level of say… sexuality despite biological leanings. It is entirely possible for a gay man to live out his life as a perfect heterosexual. I would argue that it’s not at all healthy (mentally) for him to do so. Maybe he has made a decision to live his life contrary to his feelings and emotional leanings. I would argue at that point that perhaps there are further social influences at play, and that we should very seriously question those influences.

    This is of course analogous (I’m arguing) to the monogamy issue. I think it’s at least partly biological. Certainly I never made a conscious decision to be attracted to virtually everyone I meet. I never said to myself, “Hey, it’d be great if instead of just being attracted to this one person who is wonderful and who I love, I should instead be attracted to this other person too, and fuck both of our lives up in the process!”

    I think society can take some of the blame here, because far too often we’re socially preasured as individuals to live one way or another, (in this case monogamously) which is perhaps “right” for many, but not for all.

    Fri 13:14

  3. Not for all is correct. I dont know why, but I just cant help the fact that I like to be with many different women.

Comments are closed.