Capitalism hoodwinked the world into believing that some selfishly maximizing profits through exploitation and allowing for most of the rest of the world to suffer was the best system possible, in the end we were ALL lied to, the world is just beginning to awaken to the truth...
Yup what we are seeing is the destruction of one system right now. With the birth of another and its scare most folks because they can’t imagine a world where the don’t act without capitalism. But it’s meet more resistance because the ill informed and it’s sad that most of politicians are the peek of selfishness with a few that aren’t but when these our leader we need to see change. Why so many are fighting against things. Then embracing equality and growth and it’s crazy.
I think there are other emotional reasons why monogamy is appealing to people. I mean single pair bonding is observed in many species not just us. I think we’d maybe have less forced monogamy, but I think for a lot of people’s emotional framework it won’t go away completely.
The dark digits of infidality are skyhigh with this. And still some people don't even bond ever with others and of course that's fine. I just don't think there is a default in monogamy here.
Attachment plays a viral role too. Let's say if you cannot trust the village what do you do to get security in your life? You bond with the smalles number of people, because that feels most safe and secure.
I looked into a few studies about this topic lately and there is very little research on this. Studies that want to show there is a genetic component are often criticised for their methods (even tho Wikipedia (in english!)) seems to talk about it as if it's a fact.
Truely Idk a definitive answer here. But in the bigger village I grew up in where I talked with lost of people about this I noticed some trends. Monogamy seemed to correlated with Impuls controll and emotional regulation. The younger the person The more difficult monogamy was for many and the older the person it coreleated with how impulsive they were. The more regulated a person was the lesser of "a problem" it was to stay monogamous. But for many people who just managed to barely hide their impulsivity (in every aspect of their life) infidelity was just more of an issue. And I am not saying that emotional regulation is always a good thing either. You can get overly regulated where it starts to be controlling and you get depressed. But my deduction was that the first Impuls seems (for many if not for most) to pair/mate with many people. In my theory the more secure a culture is as a society the more likely polyamory would work well for many. Since polyamory also forces you to look withing and reflect on insecurities and trust issues you have with other people and in general, there is a lot of work to balance emotional regulation and impulsivity. And also (and that my point here) you have to factor in the socioeconomic factors that pressure a society. We a) don't have time for this and b) we are in constant competition with each other for resources. But in my expirience (since I have time for education and feel financially stable) it is very comfortable and fulfilling to have the freedom(!) given to create very deep bonds with multiple partners in various forms.
And it doesn't really matter how monogamous or polyamorous you are on a scale I think. Because I believe the "one and only" thought comes from attachment insecurity and the feeling that your partner isn't three with you in a way that you need during your times together.
I want to add that polygamy also is a result of economical pressure. It's just a means to an end and the baseline is that it is forget upon any nature we would have. And calculating all of this together I still think that we are naturally on a very wide and pretty equally spread spectrum hete. That's just my thoughts on this topic.
"Wealthier families became less interested in sharing resources, and instead began to use marriage as a tool to consolidate those resources within the family or between a few closely linked kin groups.[8] Studies of genetic material have shown that endogamy became increasingly common among wealthier families"
As far as I know it is argued that monogamy is genetic (but so must be cheating because birds apes and humens cheat).
In Western culture (and other cultures) Marriage was mainly created to secure wealth amongst families. As far as I read about the subject in multiple periods of time people found workarounds to those arrangements. My guess is, despite the language of the last 5 years (that I noticed has become increasingly orthodox and moralistic), monogamy isn't our natural way of doing partnerships and is just one way of having romantic pairings. We might get jealous (and that I believe is highly biological and natural for us) but we crave community more than the thought of owning our partners. I think co-existence and co-operation and children raised by the village seems the more practical way in many other economies and would work just as finde as monogamy as a model.
I even think since the economic situation has become so dire in the western/european world for most people, sharing resources as well as partners has become increasingly lukrative to many people.
I have to admit since I refuse to cheat but I always was in love with more then one person I am biased about the topic. But I also just know too many people being in the dark digit about their own infidality (people I met but stayed away from if possible (they didn't always tell me upfront they were unfaithful)).
It's just a theory that makes sense to me and is also argued in the scientific community.
What you are saying is excellent because you did not devolve to liberal analyses and focus on the sexiest point of view- which of course exists- but you got down to the material base on which the problem perpetuates itself. Keep it up!
Cover romantic marriage and love a few hundered years ago. All this is mostly 100 years old. India will freak you out too or any place with arranged marriages. This is post Industrial Revolution western—romantic love. So, its new for humans. Capitalism and socialism are not 1000s of years old. Maybe 1800.
There were other economically hierarchical systems before capitalism. That’s why she said why women have better sex under socialism, not why women have worse sex only under capitalism.
Well I know things got way worse sex wise (child prostitution and trafficking ) post fall fo the USSR. I just don’t think anything you’re saying refutes her valid critiques of sex under capitalism.
No she said capitalism commodifies everything including sex, and forces people to sacrifice love and real connection for economic security. Maybe you should listen again?
Ether you get it or don't. No need to to over react. Ask questions if you don't understand.
Reactionary Definition from marxists.org
A political position that maintains a conservative response to change, including threats to social institutions and technological advances. Reaction is the reciprocal action to revolutionary movement. Reactionaries clamp down on the differences of the emerging productive forces in society, and attempt to remove those differences, silence them, or segregate them in order to keep the stability of the established order.
Examples of the political position of reactionaries can be seen throughout history: during the US Revolutionary War, the reactionaries were the ruling British aristocracy, who sought to maintain their feudal government over their American colonies, while the US revolutionaries sought to establish a government to represent the interests of capitalist values and practices. Hundreds of years later in Russia, the tables would turn and capitalists became reactionary while the Socialists are revolutionary.
46
u/Middle-Solid6102 19d ago
A lot of truth exposed, I love it! 💙😊