HUMAN SEXUAL CONDITION: PROGRAMMED FOR POLYGAMY

This was interesting to read, the suggestion of pair boding as the natural structure for human relationships. For all my philandering about, I would never deny the desire to have a partner (friend or lover) who was a constant in life. Someone to call home.

THE HUMAN SEXUAL CONDITION: PROGRAMMED FOR POLYGAMY
by Dr. Gabriel Loch-Lainn Seabrook

There are some individuals who would call it "lifetime monogamy." But those individuals would be wrong. In fact, anthropological studies show that humans are not designed for lifetime monogamy, and that even in societies (such as the U.S.A. and England) where lifetime monogamy is held to be the ideal, only a tiny fraction of couples actually practice it. To the contrary, nearly all people, following our prehistoric ancestor's basic mating pattern, form a temporary pair-bond with a single mate, separate, then go in search of a new partner with whom she or he forms another brief, tenuous bond. This primal custom is overtly reflected in our obsession with dating, and in our extremely high rates of desertion, infidelity, divorce, and remarriage. Some go even further by incorrectly referring to this type of short-term intimate bonding as "serial monogamy." An objective observer will quickly realize, however, that our love of short-term pair-bonding is actually a form of what is called, "serial polygamy": having a series of temporary monogamous relationships; not simultaneously (as in straight polygamy), but in succession, spread out over time. More to the point, the modern human practice of both serial polygamy, and the far less popular lifetime monogamy, are rooted firmly in the soil of prostitution, an element without which no sexual relationship could exist.

I haven't had time to look up the artcle, but I don't know that this sounds like serial plougamy. It sounds more like sequential polygamy.

I'm not keen on her use of the Biblical material - she quotes Kings, which is not technically in the Bible, but anyway. There's a strain in the Bible, from Bereshit (Genesis) on of people not getting the message. The most famous may be the Golden Calf but much of Vayikra (Levitticus) is about stamping out Canaanite ritual practices, which are likely the material described in Kings.

(I've likely noted in other places that the famous prohibition against homosexuality is always removed from its context, which is in the middle of a list of Canaanite ritual sexual practices. The meaning is not as clear as the traditionalists want to believe.)

The Hebrew meaning of the tension was to eliminate these practices as forms of worship, not to eliminate sex. As I've noted before, sex is not a bad thing in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment against adultery, for example, refers only to sex with a married woman - and then likely because that might confuse paternity and inheritance and might lead to violence (and child murder). The various books are full of sex, including Tamar dressing as a prostitute to attract Judah - it's a convoluted story - and Jacob getting stuck with Leah instead of Rachel. Even Ruth is partly about sex because this Moabite woman - a people specifically named as the Israelites' enemies - demonstrates that she belongs to her mother-in-law Naomi's people and thus is taken as a wife by her dead husband's cousin, but only after she literally visits him in bed.

The Christian tradition has dramatically changed views toward sex. The concept of "sin" doesn't even really exist in Judaism, so the idea of Judeo-Christian morality is actually Christian morality with that tradition's interpretation of Judaic beliefs. Those interpretations are rarely how Jews themselves believe. That is why I kind of cringe when I read descriptions of Jewish history and ideas that are substantially filtered through the Christian tradition as if that were the whole and indeed the only and correct interpretation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Merisi @ Mar 16 2009, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

The concept of "sin" doesn&#39;t even really exist in Judaism,[/b]

---

Sorry to nitpick on this point but I respectfully disagree. Just a few quick examples

Relating to the golden calf: (from new JPS translation) exodus 32.30 The next day Moses said to the people, " You have been guilty of a great sin."

Leviticus 4.23 or the sin of which he is guily is brought to his knowledge

And so forth

Oh, I love when you "nitpick." Truly.

I know that&#39;s the usual translation, even in Everett Fox, but that&#39;s not the same kind of "sin." Accepting the word exists and is in common usage, what&#39;s important is how it is meant in the tradition. Another example: satan means adversary but is not personified in Judaism as "Satan."

The "Chet haEgel" name for the episode gets at the matter more clearly; a chet is an action that misses the mark, whose meaning or effect is essentially unintentional even if deliberate as an act. But that only gets at the point obliquely. The Golden Calf may be the most difficult application - as in, is the punishment really a plot point to further strip the Israelites of their Egyptian heritage and to forge them into a people while also explaining why God is not "himself" their guide into the Promised Land? Why is this "chet" so terrible when it&#39;s acknowledged that "chet" is unavoidable?

But anyway, wrongs done against God are in the Torah generally pretty specific. The reference from Levitticus, for example, is to a leader who must be purified for having contaminated the people - in the days of priesthoods and ritual cleanliness of a community. Now sometimes the Torah (or God) is pretty darn arbitrary but the general point, which I defend, is that this is not the thing people mean when they speak of sin in the usual sense. Ritual cleanliness aside, the point is that you do things, some deliberately, some out of emotion and some by omission or mistaken commission. One can say these are all sins in general Judaism - not Torah priest stuff or theologic lists of banned practices - but their theological meaning is that one accepts their existence. As an example, if one reaches out to help a person but your actions cause distress, then that is a chet in part. Let&#39;s say you risk your life to save a person and doing that frightens your own family. Again, that action hits the mark but also misses it. Doing and not doing automatically create this "sin," which is why I said Judaism doesn&#39;t have a concept of "sin" as a wrong. It&#39;s more that this is life and you can&#39;t be perfect because no one can.

I suppose the issue becomes semantic, as in "does the word or an approximation appear which justifies saying yes or no." Buddhism speaks of karma and doesn&#39;t use the word but if you look at how karma works you end up with a concept that you could, if you want, classify either as chet or sin. We could focus on the similarities but the differences are important. Example: one can say that we all worship the same God but that ignores the rather important fact that people die because they don&#39;t worship this same God in the same way.

The real difference I think is that Christianity sees sin as being an inherent part of the human experience - personified by the whole notion of Original Sin; Judaism sees man as being born in a state of non-sin with the potential to stay that way. So in one sin is inevitable, in the other man can sin but it is not seen as a fait accompli.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/Eurythmi...ry-Man--2164369

Well thanks you two I&#39;ll be humming Annie Lennox&#39;s, Missionary man for the rest of the day. :P

I have a good friend who has a "primary" partner in her life that she goes home to on a regular basis and several "secondary" partners that she enjoys loads of fun and pleasure with. I consider this "having the best of both worlds" and certainly think that this sort of lifestyle may end up being something that I would like to enjoy also later in my life.

---Sitara Devi

This is interesting info and includes the original thread info by Dr. Gabriel Loch-Lainn Seabrook

http://adultcandycane.com/herstory.html

Enjoy! No! I mean REALLY enjoy!!! hehe

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Merisi @ Mar 16 2009, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

The Hebrew meaning of the tension was to eliminate these practices as forms of worship, not to eliminate sex.
As I&#39;ve noted before, sex is not a bad thing in the Hebrew Bible.

Those interpretations are rarely how Jews themselves believe. That is why I kind of cringe when I read descriptions of Jewish history and ideas that are substantially filtered through the Christian tradition as if that were the whole and indeed the only and correct interpretation.[/b]

---

Isaac B. Singer, a Polish Jewish writer wrote something that caught my attention:
The Jew does not tempt Evil by denying the body but harnesses it in the service of God.

Now, I am a firm believer that sex can be harnessed in the service of good outside of marriage and monogamy, and even in the worship of divinity (burn the pagan!), however, I can certainly appreciate these words. It did a great deal to alter my perspective on the Jewish approach to sexuality versus the Christian approach, which has even suggested pleasure between a husband and wife is somehow blasphemous.

Indeed the more I study Jewish culture, the more I understand that sex is accepted.

Be forgiving of a gentile mind trying to wrap her mind around these ideas:

Sin is merely the breaking of a religious law or set of moral principals. Christian&#39;s have 10 commandments. Judaism has Mitzvots: 613 (I&#39;ve yet to finish reading the whole list). From what I&#39;ve gathered so far, the main difference is as DG pointed out, the concept of "Original Sin", that we are born tainted and in need of redemption before we&#39;ve so much as taken our first breath.

In a weak defense of the culture I was unfortunately born to, the Christian schools I attended taught that Judaism is Christianity without the New Testament and following older traditions.

Going back to Singer&#39;s writing, Satan is not referred to as adversity, but as a spiritual being that tempts a good Jewish man. I wonder if this is the influence of Polish culture? Then again, his story also take place in a distant past, so perhaps these are old beliefs?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Merisi @ Mar 16 2009, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

which is why I said Judaism doesn&#39;t have a concept of "sin" as a wrong. It&#39;s more that this is life and you can&#39;t be perfect because no one can.[/b]

---

I don&#39;t think Catholicism is any different in that regard. We aren&#39;t expected to be perfect, in fact, we are destined to be imperfect, which I believe is true. Perfection is beyond our reach. Though the thought to of Original Sin is distasteful to me, I do believe we are destined to do wrong at some point, unless you follow the Buddhist principal of removing yourself from the karmic cycle and participate with life as little as possible.

Isn&#39;t breaking a prohibition considered wrong? Wouldn&#39;t breaking the three prohibitions that fall under Yeihareig ve&#39;al ya&#39;avor unquestionably wrong and therefore sinful?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lauren Summerhill @ Mar 28 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Isn&#39;t breaking a prohibition considered wrong? Wouldn&#39;t breaking the three prohibitions that fall under Yeihareig ve&#39;al ya&#39;avor unquestionably wrong and therefore sinful?[/b]

---

Quick explanation for "Yeihareig ve&#39;al ya&#39;avor" which I will guess most folks reading this thread are unfamiliar with. The literal meaning of the phrase is to give up ones life and not break a prohibition. In Judaism an overriding concept is that a life that is at risk trumps everything. That means, one can violate various prohibitions such as sabbath, even yom kippur if it is to save a life. However, there are three prohibitions - adultery, idol worship, murder - which are the only ones that one should give up their life -- that is if someone says worship the idol or I will kill you, you sacrifice your life; or kill this person or I will kill you sacrifice your life.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 28 2009, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

However, there are three prohibitions - adultery, idol worship, murder - which are the only ones that one should give up their life -- that is if someone says worship the idol or I will kill you, you sacrifice your life; or kill this person or I will kill you sacrifice your life.[/b]

---

I know everyone doesn&#39;t always like all the poems...but TS. :D I read something and it reminds me of an old poem I have read. So, your comment reminded me of an old Robert Service poem called "Soldier of Fortune":
------------------------
"Deny your God!" they ringed me with their spears;
Blood-crazed were they, and reeking from the strife;
Hell-hot their hate, and venom-fanged their sneers,
And one man spat on me and nursed a knife.
And there was I, sore wounded and alone,
I, the last living of my slaughtered band.
Oh sinister the sky, and cold as stone!
In one red laugh of horror reeled the land.
And dazed and desperate I faced their spears,
And like a flame out-leaped that naked knife,
And like a serpent stung their bitter jeers:
"Deny your God, and we will give you life."

Deny my God! Oh life was very sweet!
And it is hard in youth and hope to die;
And there my comrades dear lay at my feet,
And in that blear of blood soon must I lie.
And yet . . . I almost laughed -- it seemed so odd,
For long and long had I not vainly tried
To reason out and body forth my God,
And prayed for light, and doubted -- and denied:
Denied the Being I could not conceive,
Denied a life-to-be beyond the grave. . . .
And now they ask me, who do not believe,
Just to deny, to voice my doubt, to save
This life of mine that sings so in the sun,
The bloom of youth yet red upon my cheek,
My only life! -- O fools! &#39;tis easy done,
I will deny . . . and yet I do not speak.

"Deny your God!" their spears are all agleam,
And I can see their eyes with blood-lust shine;
Their snarling voices shrill into a scream,
And, mad to slay, they quiver for the sign.
Deny my God! yes, I could do it well;
Yet if I did, what of my race, my name?
How they would spit on me, these dogs of hell!
Spurn me, and put on me the brand of shame.
A white man&#39;s honour! what of that, I say?
Shall these black curs cry "Coward" in my face?
They who would perish for their gods of clay --
Shall I defile my country and my race?
My country! what&#39;s my country to me now?
Soldier of Fortune, free and far I roam;
All men are brothers in my heart, I vow;
The wide and wondrous world is all my home.
My country! reverent of her splendid Dead,
Her heroes proud, her martyrs pierced with pain:
For me her puissant blood was vainly shed;
For me her drums of battle beat in vain,
And free I fare, half-heedless of her fate:
No faith, no flag I owe -- then why not seek
This last loop-hole of life? Why hesitate?
I will deny . . . and yet I do not speak.

"Deny your God!" their spears are poised on high,
And tense and terrible they wait the word;
And dark and darker glooms the dreary sky,
And in that hush of horror no thing stirred.
Then, through the ringing terror and sheer hate
Leaped there a vision to me -- Oh, how far!
A face, Her face . . . through all my stormy fate
A joy, a strength, a glory and a star.
Beneath the pines, where lonely camp-fires gleam,
In seas forlorn, amid the deserts drear,
How I had gladdened to that face of dream!
And never, never had it seemed so dear.
O silken hair that veils the sunny brow!
O eyes of grey, so tender and so true!
O lips of smiling sweetness! must I now
For ever and for ever go from you?
Ah, yes, I must . . . for if I do this thing,
How can I look into your face again?
Knowing you think me more than half a king,
I with my craven heart, my honour slain.

No! no! my mind&#39;s made up. I gaze above,
Into that sky insensate as a stone;
Not for my creed, my country, but my Love
Will I stand up and meet my death alone.
Then though it be to utter dark I sink,
The God that dwells in me is not denied;
"Best" triumphs over "Beast", -- and so I think
Humanity itself is glorified. . . .

"And now, my butchers, I embrace my fate.
Come! let my heart&#39;s blood slake the thirsty sod.
Curst be the life you offer! Glut your hate!
Strike! Strike, you dogs! I&#39;ll not deny my God."

I saw the spears that seemed a-leap to slay,
All quiver earthward at the headman&#39;s nod;
And in a daze of dream I heard him say:
"Go, set him free who serves so well his God!"
--------------------
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. I&#39;m gonna watch the Mizzou v UConn game...lol.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 28 2009, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

. However, there are three prohibitions - adultery, idol worship, murder - which are the only ones that one should give up their life -- that is if someone says worship the idol or I will kill you, you sacrifice your life; or kill this person or I will kill you sacrifice your life.[/b]

---

Or screw a married man or sacrifice your life?




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rudyard K @ Mar 28 2009, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

I know everyone doesn&#39;t always like all the poems...but TS. :D[/b]

---

Welcome to my world... :D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 29 2009, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Or screw a married man or sacrifice your life?[/b]

---

If you go through the relevant section in the bible, a man&#39;s marital status is irrelevant. Adultery is only if the woman is married.

(Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22)

Thanks for a fascinating thread!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 29 2009, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

If you go through the relevant section in the bible, a man&#39;s marital status is irrelevant. Adultery is only if the woman is married.

(Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22)[/b]

---

Well without doing all that how about I just reword.

"Or screw a married WOman or sacrifice your life?"

Sounds kinda sexist to me...Does that include women in long term relationships that are considered married in a legal sense in that were they to break up and have to go to court and divide assets it would be done as if they had been married?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 29 2009, 09:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Well without doing all that how about I just reword.


Sounds kinda sexist to me...[/b]

---

An ancient world religion... sexist? Say it ain&#39;t so!
:rolleyes:

I agree with Lauren.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Audra Baron @ Mar 29 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

I agree with Lauren.[/b]

---

I agree with Lauren but then I would. I&#39;m a Humanist.

How do you feel about death before having sex with a &#39;Married &#39; woman? lol

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 29 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Well without doing all that how about I just reword.

"Or screw a married WOman or sacrifice your life?"

Sounds kinda sexist to me...Does that include women in long term relationships that are considered married in a legal sense in that were they to break up and have to go to court and divide assets it would be done as if they had been married?[/b]

---

No, legally married, no such concept as common law marriage - I mean that would - HORRORS - have meant sex outside of a sanctioned relationship and we simply can&#39;t have that going on

Heh, want to talk about sexist? When a couple divorced the wife only received a pre-determined portion as detailed in the Ketubah (among other things think of it as a pre-nup). Technically speaking the wife had no assets, all belonged to her husband. If the woman was widowed she would get the pre-determined sum from the estate and there was also an obligation for her sons to support her. The only time a woman could inherit was if there were only daughters.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 30 2009, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

No, legally married, no such concept as common law marriage - I mean that would - HORRORS - have meant sex outside of a sanctioned relationship and we simply can&#39;t have that going on

Heh, want to talk about sexist? When a couple divorced the wife only received a pre-determined portion as detailed in the Ketubah (among other things think of it as a pre-nup). Technically speaking the wife had no assets, all belonged to her husband. If the woman was widowed she would get the pre-determined sum from the estate and there was also an obligation for her sons to support her. The only time a woman could inherit was if there were only daughters.[/b]

---

Well in that case I guess it&#39;s time to start my Orthodox conversion..... lol

Don&#39;t you think that religion is also heavily skewed by the culture within which you live?
I think in general, certain parts of Europe are much more liberal about sex and living "in sin" than the US regardless of their religion.
I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s right...I&#39;m just asking the question about culture.
My mum (who would be considered very British and a WASP) would be mortified if any of us (3 gals) married without first living together or god forbid, married without having sex with future hubby first. Seriously she would. She&#39;s pretty involved with her church but not blinded by religion. She takes from it what she can relate to and doesnt stress about the rest. I think she would quickly point of the ignorance and naive approach of such an action (marriage without sex and co-habiting).
I don&#39;t think she is unusual in her way of thinking either.
I have catholic friends whose parents are well aware that they are having sex outside of marriage, use contraception and a couple whose mothers know they have had a termination and support them. I think they look at lifestyle first and make religion accomodate that....in other words, religion not their primary driver and they don&#39;t allow it to make them feel guilty about their life. By stark contrast, that sort of behavior would not be going on a few short miles away amongst catholics in Ireland.....

It appears to me that the western culture allocates a lot more belief that the success of marriage relies on compatibility...where the eastern culture still seems to rely more on duty. I have an India guy who works for me who has an arranged marriage that he is quite happy in...a pretty much unheard of thing in the western culture.

I&#39;m not sure where all that fits in the religious aspect...but my thought would be that duty springs more from religious beliefs and compatability more from the secular world.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 30 2009, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Don&#39;t you think that religion is also heavily skewed by the culture within which you live?
I think in general, certain parts of Europe are much more liberal about sex and living "in sin" than the US regardless of their religion.
I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s right...I&#39;m just asking the question about culture.
My mum (who would be considered very British and a WASP) would be mortified if any of us (3 gals) married without first living together or god forbid, married without having sex with future hubby first. Seriously she would. She&#39;s pretty involved with her church but not blinded by religion. She takes from it what she can relate to and doesnt stress about the rest. I think she would quickly point of the ignorance and naive approach of such an action (marriage without sex and co-habiting).
I don&#39;t think she is unusual in her way of thinking either.
I have catholic friends whose parents are well aware that they are having sex outside of marriage, use contraception and a couple whose mothers know they have had a termination and support them. I think they look at lifestyle first and make religion accomodate that....in other words, religion not their primary driver and they don&#39;t allow it to make them feel guilty about their life. By stark contrast, that sort of behavior would not be going on a few short miles away amongst catholics in Ireland.....[/b]

---

I think mothers (and fathers) love their children more than their religion and will support them even if they don&#39;t agree with the choices they make.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rudyard K @ Mar 30 2009, 01:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

It appears to me that the western culture allocates a lot more belief that the success of marriage relies on compatibility...where the eastern culture still seems to rely more on duty. I have an India guy who works for me who has an arranged marriage that he is quite happy in...a pretty much unheard of thing in the western culture.

I&#39;m not sure where all that fits in the religious aspect...but my thought would be that duty springs more from religious beliefs and compatability more from the secular world.[/b]

---

I&#39;ve never really understood arranged marriage and agree there seems to be a sense of duty (e.g. stay married, don&#39;t leave). I will say the few couples the are products of arranged marriage I know seem to have much less intimacy (physical & emotional) than other couples.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 28 2009, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Quick explanation for "Yeihareig ve&#39;al ya&#39;avor" which I will guess most folks reading this thread are unfamiliar with. The literal meaning of the phrase is to give up ones life and not break a prohibition. In Judaism an overriding concept is that a life that is at risk trumps everything. That means, one can violate various prohibitions such as sabbath, even yom kippur if it is to save a life. However, there are three prohibitions - adultery, idol worship, murder - which are the only ones that one should give up their life -- that is if someone says worship the idol or I will kill you, you sacrifice your life; or kill this person or I will kill you sacrifice your life.[/b]

---

Just heard this same explanation watching "the Lucky Slevin" Ben Kingsley got the line.

Just like Judaism, most of the worlds major religions actually have the same principles in banning murder and adultry. To me, as long as I live a good life on Earth with loving intentions and acts, I feel like if ever a judgement day come I&#39;ll have a really good alibi for me to slide through the doors of eternal happiness.
--Sitara Devi