The Comming Sexual Norms that is no norm at all

How far have we gone from the idea of faithfulness in relationships? How about the place where monogomy is considerd a danger to human rights. Today, there is a small ground swell of acceptance for polyamorist relationships. In the below video Diana Adams is a committed polyamorist, a Brooklyn lawyer and a sexual civil rights activist. In this pod, Diana's real life is put on display. She juggle her multiple committed polyamorous relationships, go with her to court where she defends the rights of alternative families and see how she is defining new sexual norms.



Diana is not an uneducated weirdo but she is in the middle of this move to a new definition for human relationships.You may say that this is margal, the outer limates of our culture, and I would agree. While today most people are morally against such behavior. It may not stay that way. Given the entrenchment of scientific materialism as our cultural worldview monogamy could one day become a vice. Richard Dawkins has an article in Newsweek that challenges the ethics of monogamy as oppressive. As the good doctor states:

“I want to raise another question that interests me. Why are we so obsessed with monogamous fidelity in the first place?... The underlying presumption -- that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being's body -- is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification?”

Even sticking to the higher plane of love, is it so very obvious that you can't love more than one person? We seem to manage it with parental love (parents are reproached if they don't at least pretend to love all their children equally), love of books, of food, of wine (love of Chateau Margaux does not preclude love of a fine Hock, and we don't feel unfaithful to the red when we dally with the white), love of composers, poets, holiday beaches, friends . . . why is erotic love the one exception that everybody instantly acknowledges without even thinking about it? Why can a woman not love two men at the same time, in their different ways? And why should the two – or their wives -- begrudge her this?”

Dawkins holds sexual jealousy not infidelity as the vice. From his evolutionary worldview he has a solid definable position, that is if you assume his presupposition of Darwinism. Sadly most of the western world unconsciously holds such view making His arguments feasible. Just ask the average teen what does it mean to be human? If we are animals general mammal behavior informs our behavior. Further, human evolution has brought us to a pragmatic understanding of sexual rights along those general mammal lines.
I am reminded of a line from the song, The Bad Touch by Bloodhound Gang, "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." Now, the song is very crude but accurate on a philosophical level. If we are animal with no higher moral law directing out behavor an ethic of monogamy is little more than power games to control others. In Dawkins' moral frame any person motivated by sexual jelously that clams some idea of ownership over another person is a real evil. Dawkins is not alone in his thought. Modern psychology clams monogamy does not work (The Monogamy Hoax in Psychology Today,[1] )   The best we can do is to make it long enought to give a "baby a reasonable chance for survival," writes Dr Stephen B. Mason. He concludes:

So there you have it. For tens of thousands of years, human beings fell in love, made a baby, fell out of love and then did it again with a new partner. Just because somebody decided to change the rules a few hundred years ago - a mere blink of the eye in terms of evolution - makes no difference. Unless we can practice the serial monogamy of super stars and celebrities, we are genetically engineered to face lifelong monogamy as a form of incest. I know this will come as a surprise to most of you and a challenge to many of you. The idea that One-Man-One-Woman-Fifty-Years isn't normal flies in the face of all you've been taught and all the Dr. Phils and the Dr. Lauras espouse. And yet, can you come up with a better scenario to fit the facts?

Look At It This Way
There are many people you love with whom you wouldn't want to have sex and vice versa...people with whom you'd enjoy a one night stand but may not even like all that much. In effect, conventional marriage may justifiably be equated with either eventual infidelity or an inevitable denial of the sex drive. The romantic notion that the two - love and sex - must always go together and that the ‘till death do us part model should be taken as the gold standard of relationships is just that - a romantic notion

Now I am not a fan of the overly romantic notion of marriage but claming all romance is a chemical induced sham. Would he have me chunk my John Cusack collection and burn my copy of 'Say Anything'? All I can say to that is "heresy"! I often wonder how such people get PHDs then I remember, I am the one who is backwards. All because I will not accept evolution as a worldview presupposition instead of a valid but debated scientific theory, silly-me!? [*sigh* & *sarcasm*].

I should have known where Dr Mason was going when I read his open question; "Divorce is such an emotionally devastating, financially ruinous event that it might be wise to take a close look at its root cause - marriage. Is it possible that monogamy is abnormal?" His answer, abnormal as Helen Keller doing stand up comedy. 

If we are only mamals the biology dictates behavior and monogamy is restics to our mammal nature to spread DNA far and wide. Then monongomy is morally wrong and an alternative needs to be erected (no pun intend). Guided by the evolutionary worldview the logical conclusion for all involved in to deconstruct relationships to a polyamorous level. In time marriage becomes culturally obsolesce. Not saying people will not get married but I am saying that more and more people will not define relasionships by the old sexual norms [2].I am going beyond the homosexual debate and into a temporary and formless view of all relationships much like that of some mammal species.

You may think, "Dawson your have lost it! your talking like a mad man? How can that be? Why would people even entertain such an argument?" Because as a culture how we view the world guides our behavior in it. The body of knowledge we draw from to answer the meaningful questions about ourselves and our world will guide what we view as legitimate and possible for human behavior.

Today, we are at a turning point in human history (Not 2012) scientific evolution has been taught from a worldview frame for over 30 years now. It holds sway in with both the general zeitgeist and the public courts.[3] Most courts give strong credence to the scientific body of knowledge. And although our post modern mood dismisses the totality of the scientific worldview people will still give authority to a scientist or researcher who clams "such and such" study concluded people need to "bla bla bla". We need no worry with polygamy, polyamorous relationships is the coming danger.  For now, we need not tarry but seek to formulate good contextually and logically sound arguments against polyamorous relationship.

So I encourage you to wake up. Be alert, I do not joke! It will be here sooner than you think. When the church has been lulled to sleep by 'Nova specials' and water collier talk; when in our sleep we define humanity as a rational, self-conscious, naked ape though our waking lips lie to us; when our kids redefine what a 'sleep over' is, to match the practices of a 'sleep over' -- it will be to late. As that day dawns, our grand kids and their grand kids will find it hard to understand what it means to be monogamous. I sympathize with the words of another Madman:


"I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves."
   
End-notes
[1] The article is a good example of 'evolutionary psychology'. A perspective that is quickly becoming the consistence view in psychology due to its ability to 1.) give a comprehensive worldview, and 2.) make peace between the waring camps of philosophical psycology and experimental psycology.

[2] The arguments used by chrisatin ethicsist caming same sex marriage will ead to beasteality is not the best argment. That is only for shock value. the best argument is the ifpolyamorous relationships become accepted then the concept of relationships no longer exist. You cant have a country without borders you can have relationships without social category that are more than subjective. Think of the IRS issues?

[3] The argument for modern idea of fundamental right (a modern conception of human rights outside those expressed in the bill of right but clammed to be function under the 14th amendment). fundamental rights were under pinned by the ideaology of political evolution. States' rights and autonomy can be bypassed in the name of defending the fundimental rights of the indivifual citizen. We know it as the idea of big government, where the right of the state to government itself is subject to control by the national government.    

Related articles by Zemanta

• What the heck is Polyamory? (answersforthefaith.com)
• Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic? (cnn.com)
• The Future of Sex is Torrenting Yourself [The Future] (gizmodo.com)
• New Yorkers' Sex Lives Leads Researcher To Conclude We Are Culpably Neurotic [Let's Talk About] (jezebel.com) 
• Intimacy Abundance and Label-Free Relationships (stevepavlina.com)