just do it – a lot

All is/ought distinctions and naturalistic fallacies aside, whilst monogamy does occur in some non-human species, apparently humans have a evolutionary and biological predisposition of sorts to polygamy.

But is this really newsworthy?  Even the most prudish of “just lay there and think of the queen” conservatives would admit off the record to the fact that being married to one person doesn’t remove all attraction to all other potential mating partners.  Yet again, science is giving us technical and detailed accounts of what we already knew.  We like sex.  We like sex a lot.  We like a lot of sex.  Which is good news for the pornography and prostitution industries, though perhaps not for monogamy.

If both the above science and near-universal human experience is correct, then monogamy necessarily always involves a kind of saying ‘no’ to a desire that is as natural and normative as it gets.  There are two interesting points of relevance here for the current global discussion of same-sex marriage.

1) Legal same-sex marriage and legal multi-marriage are logically related.  It is hardly ‘scaremongering’ to point out that polygamy is the next step in the current progression, if not one of the next steps.  There is no shortage of online pro-polygamy groups which have been arguing for its legality for years (and plenty of challenging of other ‘no-marriage-for-you’ lines un-challenged in the currently proposed legislation).  Methinks that those pushing for the law change don’t want to talk for too long on this point, so they play the ‘scaremongering’ (or religious ‘fear’) card as quickly as possible.

2) Saying no to sexual desires may not be so inhumane after all.  If indeed the natural tendency toward polygamy is there in the vast majority of humans, then the widespread monogamous habit of routinely dousing of the flames of desire for multiple sex-partners is infinitely more backwards and sexually repressive in scope and number than expecting a relatively small percentage of the population to do the same with (homosexual) desires which are arguably just as natural, though incredibly less common.

But of course I do not think that sexual self-control is repressive or backwards.  Neither do I think that sexual expression (or marriage for that matter) is some kind of thing that makes you human – and therefore is a ‘right’.  All this goes directly against messages both implicit and explicit in movies, media and advertising whose suggestion is hardly a gentle one: namely that to err is virgin, and to get it on is divine.

And the church doesn’t help much either.  Marriage is on such a pedestal that single people feel like unfortunate, illegitimate, inconvenient accessories accompanying we normal married folk.  We need to affirm those who are both single and celibate as being just as human as any other.

5 thoughts on “just do it – a lot”

  1. Legal same-sex marriage and legal multi-marriage are logically related.

    Why add ‘same-sex’ to the term marriage when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point you are making? Why not use the descriptor ‘opposite-sex’? Why single out ‘same-sex’?

  2. That’s a fair point. Being married to one person (whatever gender, same or different to your own) could have a logical link to wanting to be married to more than one person. Using a ‘the more the merrier’ logic, etc. My point (which I obviously didn’t state as clearly as I should) was merely to observe that the quick, routine playing of the ‘scaremongering’ card any time anyone suggests that “polygamy is (or might be) next” ought to be seen as either an evasion or simply being ignorant of the facts of our biological dispositions and already-existing movements.

  3. If indeed the natural tendency toward polygamy is there in the vast majority of humans, then the widespread monogamous habit of routinely dousing of the flames of desire for multiple sex-partners is infinitely more backwards and sexually repressive in scope and number than expecting a relatively small percentage of the population to do the same with (homosexual) desires which are arguably just as natural, though incredibly less common.

    I hope you’re not saying “Dude, if I can repress my desire to have sex with lots of woman, you can easily repress your desire to have sex with with one man”.

    I may be reading you wrong though.

  4. Also +1 tildeb’s comment and… polygamy’s next?

    So what?

    I personally can’t find anything intrinsically wrong with polygamy or polyamory (hell, take Wise King Solomon for example). As long as we’re talking about love, how can it be evil/bad? Like gay lovers and straight lovers, white lovers and black lovers, you will have polygamous lovers that are healthy and functional and then you will have others that don’t work and maybe never should have never gotten married.

    The main complication with polygamy as far as I’m aware is the legal issues surrounding shared ownership/custody, especially in the case of a dissolve.

  5. Thanks Ryan, good to hear you agree that the reactionary ‘religious scaremongering’ card-playing is wrongheaded. That’s all I’m saying with that point: simply that when person a) says, ‘well why shouldn’t we allow polygamy then?’ and person b) (i.e. Louisa Wall, and various others) says ‘what? like that’s going to happen… that’s scaremongering…’ person b) is being irrational, precisely because i) we don’t have to look to the future to see pro-polygamy groups – they’re active right now and use your arguments, and ii) we are possibly/probably biologically conditioned (or at least inclined) toward polygamy.

Comments are closed.