Serial monogamy

while the strictest ideas of monogamy are certainly still around, it seemed to me that much of the world has been, more and more, questioning what you call "serial monogamy." i mean, even if you just look at tv shows, you constantly see people screwing around with whoever and it's usually not depicted as something particularly bad - and i think its had an effect on how people view sexual relationships (or maybe vice versa, i'm not sure).

Why would it need to be resisted? There is no reason why anyone should try or be able to enforce their conceptions of sexual morality and how people should interact on the rest of their community, even if one percieves serial monogamy to have certain emotional costs and disadvantages. If anything, we should fight against the concept of a 'dominant standard' and emphasise that individuals should not be subject to prevailing ideas about relationships, but should instead be able to live according to their own decisions and feelings.

yes!

send this shit to the problem pages where it belongs!

This thread might not have been the best way to start some discussion on the themes of sexual, family and social relationships in this society and the future, but there must surely be some space for this area which seems sadly neglected by pro revolutionary minorities.

While I would agree that none of us need to be engaged in pressing new moral codes of sexual behavior on anyone or encouraging the development of 'dominant standards' this should not be used to stifle debate of this critical area of human behavior, which if it doesn't interest the average right on revolutionary on these threads, does interest the rest of humanity.

There was a great deal of discussion and new thinking around that old theme of 'the family, private property and the state' and 'the sexual revolution' during the 70's and early 80's (including in the publication I was involved in called SOLIDARITY for Social Revolution'). Some of the stuff published then was, in retrospect, a bit embarrassing, but it wasn't all rubbish. Of course some people did themselves a lot of damage by interpreting the slogan 'the personal is political' too literally but I sometimes think the reaction to the excesses of that period has gone a tad too far.

Most pro revolionaries will admit that in revolutionary periods sexual and cultural experimentation is let rip, but whilst they are prepared to examin the connections between that period and the here and now in terms of economics, strikes, occupations, political organising etc seem reluctant to examin the same connections in terms of sexual and family relations.

Modern capitalism has loosened many of the old bonds in terms of sexual and social behavior in a positive way but it is hardly the case that people are sexually liberated in any meaningful sense and the desire to be liberated and the suppression of those desires are still powerful forces which we ignore at our peril..

In the same way we resist lining up in capitalisms democratic policy debates of 'for or against the NHS or Council Housing' we should not line up in the current 'liberal versus fundamentalist' debates around sexual and family issues. But we surely still have something to say in this area of human behavior?

We may wish ''that people should be able to live according to their own decisions and feelings' but decisions and feelings develop within particular material and social circumstances now and will in the future.
There is an interelationship between social and individual change which includeds sexual behavior and which is worthy of exploration.

Issues around monogomy are not irrelevant to such a discussion. (I may return to this).

There are also some connections with internal and external Political group behavior - the psychological factor I have referred to elsewhere. (I may also return to this)

please

Not too sure about that. I'm sick to death of human solidarity, I just want to dish out messy facials from now on.

Jeremy - I think good old Zygmunt Bauman argues along those lines in 'Liquid Love'.

Which brings us back to Lazy: perhaps you should think about reducing your emissions?

What is there about serial monogamy that is inherently "destructive of human soliarity"

You seem pretty determined to portray serial monogamists in a purely negative light, as sexually repressive bastards who regard the person they're with as a disposible instrument, something that can be "traded in" for a better model. What do you base this upon?

The words give it away - "serial" implies disposable while "monogamy" implies sexually repressive. It's destructive of solidarity because the two people involved are expected to never talk to each other again, and that goes for each side's friends, too - note how he qualifies this by saying that soft-SeriMog is treated with suspiciion (I haven't noticed that that's true).

people like him should worry more about their own relations than other peoples.

I mean surely one could say free love and all the rest of that bollocks is just symptomatic of capitalism and it's commodity market but then again who gives a fuck if those involved are consentual.

This is my current approach actually. Works well enough as far as I can tell.

Sorry if I've been polluted here by reading Freud before reading anyone else, but isn't Monogamy supposed to be repressive? And once it ceases to be repressive with one person it's time to move right along and fulfill purpose elsewhere, so to speak?

It’s as more of a loyalty swap, like, I'll stay faithful to you in order to avoid the anxiety of sexual competition. When your gf/bf no longer does it for you sexually (and for those who prefer sex with people under 40, it’s bound to happen eventually) you’ve got to play away to get your jollies and put up with the fact they’ll do the same or do a runner in disgust. Simple as really, don't really see the issue. What I do reckon though, you either enjoy your sex life or die of cancer or a heart attack. There's a bit of Reich for you.

I recently read statistics about the U.S. saying that about 51% of white women and 70% of black women (dunno about other ethnicities) are unmarried. But I'm not sure if more choose to stay romantically unattached or whether there's that "serial monogamny" Jeremy is referring to. There certainly seems to be a trend of deepening atomization and breakup of the nuclear family (so maybe I should call it 'atomic fission'?) . I think this applies to Israel as well, although to a lesser extent.

Yeah. My Mrs was saying that women don't need monogomy unless the sex is good enough to make them want to mark their territory. I think as Brinton sort of pointed out, it's a "good thing(tm)".

i think it's a good question it's a standard. not saying that it's like amazing to criticise any standard (maybe it is), but its good practice at least.

cancer for me them

yeah, sorry to tp. but its my opinion at the moment that marxism offers a much needed universality. so i suppose i want to point out that 'serial monogomy' might be an attempt to offer another, whilst denying the value of liberal diversity/diffetrence/whatever term dos not upset you.

Not necessarily. AFAIC, it just means choosing to be in a sexual relationship with one person at any one time, while recognising that relationships rarely last forever. It works for some people, it doesn't for others. Whatever jangles your bangles.

Monogamy is only repressive if you don't enjoy it.

What are you, 14?

A major aspect of monogamy is privileging one relationship/person over others. It is also a huge component of the myth of the nuclear family. I do not think it fosters solidarity to focus all of your intimacy into one relationship, generally at the expense of others, and especially in a society that values skinny white rich people over "the Other." Non-monogamy and polyamory take more work, sure, but I think that when done well it is far more egalitarian and actively constructs human solidarity. Not to say I rail against people in traditional relationship, but I do think it is important to question the construction of those traditions.

How very magnanimous of you.

Also, I sleep around quite extensively and I can assure you that it's not hard work at all.

Well no, it wouldn't be difficult for you, love, would it cos j. rogue is talking about actually working at relationships with a number of people and not just one and doing so, presumably, in an upfront and ethical way - you are just talking about making like an alleycat - big difference!!

Love

LW X

Madas.. yeah agree with all of this...tho i didn't realise you had such an extensive jewellry collection.

Thing is just because there is a norm, doesn't mean peeps shouldn't feel that that isn't a valid choice for them if it suits them - to go against the norm just to make a point is really lame and not revolutionary at all - because that isn't a free will choice. There is nothing more wince-inducing than someone trying to experiment with a sexual or relationship model that doesn't suit in order to look cool - way too Mark from Peepshow!

Love

LW X

PS Lem - no worries about the cancer/celibacy thing - i am sure a lot of peeps on here are not wildly sexually active and you can take a good thing too far..i take Lazy's point that sex has certain health benefits but overdoing it can also cause probs - the heart attack may still happen for other reasons - Viagra overload perhaps??

PPS redstruggle - good to read your post - hope to see some of your other posts on here....welcome newbie..altho i don't know why jez called you redwing - perhaps he is a twitcher?? (maybe cos he doesn't have enough sex... )

All you're doing here is describing the aspects of particularly unhealthy, co-dependent relationships. Not all monogamous relationships necessarily imply ignoring all other personal relationships. And what's wrong with the nuclear family in itself?

First of all, non-monogamy =/= "free love" with no communication or consequences, it is about having relationships with more than just one person. Madashell, you are right, there are people out there who are in monogamous relationships that do have strong relationships with other people. Hell, there are non-monogamous people who only care about people they are having sez with and not the rest of the community. I am more talking about the model, not the exceptions to the rule. Also, could you elaborate on the eyerolling emoticon? That doesn't communicate your criticism of my comment very aptly.

No, people who have no strong relationships with anybody else are the exception. Unfortunately for your argument, relationships don't fit into neat little boxes that conform to whatever entirely imaginary "model" you subscribe to.

How many people in monogamous relationships do you actually know?

As if there's any need to criticise it. It's such a patently rediculous thing to say.