Monogamy - does it make sense in sl?

Without wanting to get into the fine details, monogamy is the most prevalent socio-sexual partnership model for homo sapiens in the real world. There seem obvious reasons and benefits of this (biased towards the female of the species) although most mammals seem to do well without it.

LL only allows one name in the 'Partnership' box, and so appears to be implicitly supporting serial monogamy as the primary formal relationship construct.

Most of the people I know (certainly most of the women) seem also to have "one at a time" as a preferred model inworld (ignoring whatever their arrangements might be in real life) but is this because they have not thought too much about it, because they think their potential mates might be deterred by the prospect of some other poly relationship or because they just couldn't cope with remembering what name to type in when in the throes of cyber ecstasy - and don't want to lose what they *do* have?

I wouldn't expect anybody to admit publicly here that social monogamy provides a nice stable platform for 'extramarital' sex , but I'd be interested in your thoughts on why, when the ties are less binding and the rewards less overtly pleasurable, anyone would commit themselves to one other, rather than playing the field.

Pep (all of whose sl relationships have been purely platonic of course )

Some people naturally tend towards the monogamous. It was an unexpected and somehow not entirely satisfying discovery for me, when I discovered I was one. Of course that makes the partner box in SL irrelevant for this ferret.

Is that because there are no sufficiently attractive female ferrets available in sl?

Pep (I wasn't really asking about real-virtual monogamy, but if it broadens up the discussion - without starting an "is it cheating" argument - then why not?)

I will wait along with you, as I am unqualified to answer that question.

Why not? I have no idea. It just doesn't feel right, OK? My neural net is wired for only having one full time partner, RL or VR.

This kind of thing seems pretty hardwired at a low enough level that self-analysis is rationalization at best.

Is that because you play the field?

Pep (Or do you just not like anybody enough to want to form a liaison? )

Come now, we must preserve some mystery

I looked for an indication of whether mustelids were monogamous and it seems that they are almost completely promiscuous . . .

Pep ( . . . except for the Giant Otter. )

This ^^ As I have stated previously on the forums, I am the same person (thoughts, beliefs, emotions, reactions, etc.) in RL and on any virtual medium, be it IRC, EverQuest or SecondLife.

To take it one step farther, and introduce the ever-popular "Is it cheating" thread...*for me* (emphasis on this is *my* opinion *for me* only) partnering with someone in SL who is married in RL would be cheating and go against my moral codes.

Just my 2L and since I am not overly skilled in the art of debate, I am stating an answer to the OP's question only.

I get hit on quite a lot or maybe that's an illusion, I have a partner and quite few women I know send me TPs unexpectedly while in world, only occasionally do I go, usually I don't really want to but sometimes you have to be social, I keep my partner updated all the time about my where-abouts. One partner is enough for me, I am here to build and I can't imagine the interruptions I could end up having with more than one.

That's not really well put, but hopefully you get the gist of it.

When, anthropologists first started compiling statistics on all the cultures that had been encountered, they found that 'harem structures' were actually more common - monogamous cultures have only become more prevalent quite recently.

The advantage of harem living for women may not seem clear at first - but it does result in most women having a higher status husband than they would have in a monogamous structure.

Of course that doesn't mean that just the (minority of) married men get to have sex with their numerous wives. In practise, the wives have lovers - both from the pool of single men and the other wives.

How this may be relavent to SL, I don't know - I'm new here.

Do you mean that monogamy primarily benefits the woman? The term itself is male-centric, and implies that it's his choice.

Wouldn't a female-biased "model" be multiple husbands?

.

Higamous, hogamous, woman's monogamous; hogamous, higamous, man is polygamous.

I rather like the idea of polyandry.

I'm right there with ya Czari, I am who I am despite the fact that I'm hidden behind an avatar.

I believe 100% in monogamy. That's just how I am.

I don't think of myself that way, so I guess we have different rationalizations for this tendency.

I don't "believe in" monogamy, by the way. I don't consider this quirk in my wiring makes me a better person, any more than having good hair and teeth does, or having a poor sense of smell makes me a worse one.

Ack, I think I am too. I hate being smothered in both worlds

I really DO wish that LL would have a poly option for "partnering". It would make the lives of so many much easier.

There are a number of SL residents I am acquainted with that have poly relationships, despite what their profile's partner status cites. LL's oversight is certainly not limiting people's behaviours.

In answer to your question, I do believe that the situation, people involved and mental state must all be in order. One does not wake up one day and decide they will have multiple partners in SL no matter how "easy it is" to do so.

As an aside, I also know of people who are poly in RL, but monogamous in SL simply because that is the current state of affairs (no pun intended) for them.

Therefore, I don't believe this is a situation of "people should because it's easier". Although I am curious about the transfer of societal influence from RL to SL in this regard -- that people's natural mental state is one of single relationships.

Veering off topic a little, I do not believe humans are naturally monogamous creatures, but are largely that wasy because "society tells them so".

That's my half awake answer.

I think they should completely rework the "partner" concept and profiles, myself.

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1115

Wow.

I have no opinion on this whatsoever . . .



/me shakes her head, and heads off to get another coffee in the hope that she just needs more caffeine.

I would prefer to have a monogamous relationship with a RL girl and a monogamous relationship with my SL mistress. (And by mistress I mean the old fashioned extra wife thing, not the spank me with a flogger thing.) At the risk of revealing too much, I don't care for casual sex in general and only do it if I'm single and things are a little desperate in the Pants Dept.

Hey Smithy - I managed to render Scylla commentless as well!

Pep (Twice in two days - what *is* the world coming to? )

High five!!!!

/me feels her forehead . . .

Maybe I'm running a fever?

I'm kind of 'comment-less' too, mostly because I'm not qualified to answer from personal experience, in SL, having never had a partner. I think I'm like Argent, I'm just wired to monogamy but then again, that could just be societal hard wiring. It's what I know and what I do in RL. It's what I'm comfortable with. I did try another way, once (RL, never SL). I didn't like it. I have a transgender friend in SL who is 'polyamorous' (sp) Sorry Pep not sure of the spelling, please don't make me go to dictionary.com. I love this friend and his choice of sexuality/arrangements doesn't mean anything to me, has no effect on the reasons I love him.

Websites around the world will have headlines that read:

ZOMG - SECOND LIFE PROMOTES POLYGAMY & EVIL

Never going to happen. Expand picks and add them there.

This sort of thing would be a rotating door of 'sex partners of the week' for the majority of people out there, or a constantly shuffling list of a Dom(me)s most recent collared subs. And i really do not see why LL would commit anytime to adding such a modification.

On second thought.

Perhaps something like this can be done using a 'family list' of some sort. This way it is not directly associated with a sexual amorous relationship. Would that be acceptable for those wishing to reflect their extra loved ones in their polyamorous relationship?