Black Relationships : Is there any real "justification" for monogamy?

Discussion in 'Black Relationships' started by African_Prince, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. African_Prince

    African_Prince Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +48
    By 'monogamy', I don't mean simply choosing to have only one partner, I mean the agreement that you won't develop a sexual and/or romantic relationship with other people on condition that your partner do the same ; blackmailing your partner to not act on feelings they might have for other people with the threat of terminating your relationship with them if they do.

    If you truly loved someone, you would want them to be happy, correct? If developing a sexual and/or romantic relationship with other people would make them happy, how can you say that you love them yet disapprove of something that would make them happy? Most people will proudly admit to being 'selfish', to wanting to keep their partner to themselves, I think this is possessive and objectifying. The world would be a lot better if love and sexual desire were no longer inhibited. Most people want variety (in their sex/romantic lives) whether they act on it or not.

    I've said before that I think there are two kinds of love : selfless love(empathy) and selfish love (attachment). I think healthy relationships are based on empathy.
     
  2. delsydebothom

    delsydebothom Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25
    Your question raises another: what are your thoughts on the intrinsic meaning of human sexuality?
     
  3. African_Prince

    African_Prince Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +48

    I don't think there is any objective meaning or purpose to human sexuality. It was favored by natural selection because it resulted in reproduction, romance is probably an adaptation that ensures a couple stays together long enough for them to co-operate in child rearing. I think humans crave sexual contact and romantic love because there is no greater intimacy that you can share with someone. (positive) physical contact releases oxytocin (the 'love hormone') and nothing is more physically intimate than having sex, cuddling, tongue-kissing.
     
  4. delsydebothom

    delsydebothom Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25
    If you are coming at it with that concept of human sexuality, I suppose your conclusion about monogamy is rational. I think there are good reasons for disagreeing with that concept, though, and for thinking that man is more than a function of biology. Nevertheless, examining that question would require a starting place much earlier than the nature of sex.
     
  5. blkbutterfly41

    blkbutterfly41 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    483
    Ratings:
    +483
    Hmmmmm Interesting. I actually don't beleive in monogamy. Its simply un-natural and unrealistic. We are taught to live monogamous lifestyle.


    With that being said, we are not mentally prepared to have a polygamous marriages either. We have a long way to go.

    I think when people think of mono verses poly. They go straight to the sex and the man . And polygamous marriages is far more then that. They had no OOW babies, No kids left as ophans. The wives had a strong sisterhood and love was deep in the root of the family structure. Biblically it was the norm. The Quran as well, condones Poly. Its unrealistic to think that 2 people get married at a young age and feelings and emotions stay the same until death. It rarely happens, and what actually happening is people are simply buying into the image and appearance of. And monogamy promotes deception and encoyrages cheating.

    Not to mention that there are 5 women to 1 man. That leaves a whole lot of lonely , manless women and/or shared men.


    Peace



     
  6. oldiesman

    oldiesman Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +120
    hey i want serveral wives to cook them[smoked pork butts]but wife no.one will be in charge[ain't gon be no fightin in the kitchen.
     
  7. CreativeGrl

    CreativeGrl Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    338
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +339
    Personally I thing the "un-natural" reasoning is just an excuse. People do un-natural things to their body all the time when it suits their purpose, like taking birth control to stop ovulation, or having plastic surgery, or having an abortion. Taking Viagra and having a 6 hour erection is un-natural, but that doesn't stop men from taking it. (not saying that I am necessarily against these things, just saying they're un-natural)

    And yes, certain men in the Bible had multiple wives, but that was simply a reflection of the times. It was never something condoned by God. In fact, there are numerous times in the Bible where God specifically defines marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.

    I do agree that when people thing of polygamy, they only think of the man, but what many people don't know is that there were certain tribes in Africa where the woman was allowed to have multiple husbands. I wonder how quickly mens' perspective on this subject would change if this was an option for the modern day women?
     
  8. blkbutterfly41

    blkbutterfly41 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    483
    Ratings:
    +483


    I hear you and your entitled to your opinion and perspective. Much respect.

    However, The bible suits all times and never goes out of style by design. If man was truly meant to have one partner the world would be equal to the gender. Meaning that women would not outnumber men grossly. Polygamous marriage was condone throughout the bible and God even rewarding some of his servants by giving them more wives. There is no verses in the bible that commands one wife. Even if you consider individual interpretation and perception. Commandments are gods laws. And That's indisputable if you indeed believe in the bible itself .

    Just say monogamy was upheld with all commitments. That leaves OVER half of the female population man-less. ( Thats minus gays, & bi- women, unisex as well. ) So truly , what should those women do ??


    As far as the Africans that practiced Polyandry. That was for an purpose and an unselfish purpose at that. The Clan must survive !! At one time men had problems producing sperm. They wasn't privy to certain simply medical practices we have now to solve those issues. So the objective and goal was to keep producing. So to ensure that the women did become pregnant she had two husbands. ( Sometimes more )

    Thanks, Peace


     
  9. CreativeGrl

    CreativeGrl Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    338
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +339
    I understand your point, however, the reason I say polygamy was a "sign of the times" is because back in biblical times, unmarried women had no means to provide for themselves. They had to marry if they wanted to be protected and provided for, or else end up as slaves or prostitutes. And that meant marrying a man who already had other wives. But that isn't the case in this day. Marriage today is an option, not a necessity. Women have the ability to provide for themselves, therefore eliminating the need for polygamy.

    Also, whenever God speaks of marriage in the Bible, the word "wife" is always used in the singular:
    • "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), and the two (not three or four) shall become one flesh"
    • "For the husband is head of the wife (singular)"
    • "He who loves his wife (singular) loves himself."
    • "An elder must be blameless, the husband but of one wife (singular)."
    • "... and while he (Adam) was sleeping, God took one rib (singular)...then God made a woman (singular) from the rib."
    So, even though polygamy was common, God's intended structure for marriage was made very clear.

    As far as there being more women than men: It's like someone putting a dish full of candy on their desk. Sure, there are plenty to choose from, but the point is to choose the one you want, and keep it movin', not for one person to take the whole dish. :)
     
  10. blkbutterfly41

    blkbutterfly41 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    483
    Ratings:
    +483
    Thanks for sharing your POV , Sister. However, I have to disagree. I know interpretation has a lot to do with our difference of opinions. But going specifically how the bible is design. I have to disagree with you because of these points.

    Anything that is forbidden is stated. Laws etc. If polygamy was forbidden . Like everything else it would have stated so. Nowhere in the bible was it forbidden and God himself, rewarded a couple of his servants with more wives. So if he only wanted man to have one wife , Why would he reward his servants with more ?? Example : Leah

    Jacob was just one of many polygamists in the Bible. Some others included Gideon (Judges 8:30), Elkanah, father of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1:2), and kings such as Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:21), Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21), and Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:3). Most famously, Solomon himself had "seven hundred wives... and three hundred concubines" (2 Kings 11:3). None of these royal polygamists were chastised or punished by God for this - except for Solomon, but even here the exception proves the rule. According to the Bible, Solomon's sin was not that he married many wives, but that he married foreign wives who turned him away from worshipping Yahweh (11:4).

    Was polygamy just a Hebrew tribal custom, disliked but tolerated by God? Hardly: the Torah itself, God's law book, endorses polygamy by giving rules on when and how a man was allowed to take more than one wife and how the rules of inheritance worked in this situation.

    Note: We know they tampered with the bible, But to take out polygamy , I suspect it would have been noticeable. Not to mention that the singular and plural is because of language change. The word for "wife" in Hebrew is "eesha" (ee like in meet). It is also the word for "woman". There is no plural.

    Don't get me wrong, People should do what they want to do. However, I think we all should be careful that we don't elevate our ideas and theories over God , himself. If you indeed believe in the bible as being Gods word.

    I admit that it should be modified but still an legal option for those who choose.

    If a woman does not want to be in an polygamist marriage , She shouldn't be forced too. Same vice versa for either gender.

    Realistically, Good people are good people regardless if they CHOOSE to be in either. But Should they not have the choice ??


    btw: As for men providing the protection , and vital needs. That's simply not true. In our ancient culture, many matriarchy societies had polygamy as well. Meaning that the women played a vital rule in that "providing and protecting."

    Take a look at the Queens that ruled with a firm hand in Egyptology. Also note that they had the title "Kings". As European cultures made it more gender specific but it was simply an title at that time.

    We are taught to think that Polygamy will suppress women. But May I ask this question:

    Never in our history was it ever necessary to have an women's liberation movement until western society control the masses.



    Why ???


    Because we was already liberated. That's why. It truly an mind trick.

    Black women contributed to man-kind as well as our black men. Black men taught the world how to honor and give the deepest respect to black women. That's shown in the pyramids that they built, in the hieroglyphics, in the books, and at the temples and even with their gods.

    Unlike them, Who burned their own women that dared to think. Killed their own babies and threw them over the cliff, If they was anything short of perfect . ( Spartans ) And they had never treated their women will any type of respect but they was closer to slaves then anything.

    That was never us.

    Nowhere in our ancients culture before their was an Caucasians have you ever heard of gender wars or Afrikaans competeing with each other by gender.

    Truly that is strictly an western practice because of how they treated their OWN women. Women liberation movement was never our fight but we played a role of the movement taking focus off the civil rights movement where we was fighting for human rights for all.

    My 2 cents.

    Thanks again, I look forward to hearing your POV .............. Peace

     
Loading...