Monogamy - does it make sense in sl?

You're completely wrong there, Jig. Ferrets sleep like the dead.

Nothin like broad generalizations there, Jig Two (or more) people might make an agreement of any sort that makes them both (all) happy.

Notice how all the men are starting to be dead quiet in this thread?

"All those children" is now a chef and doing fine, thank you. He has brought *us* scraps from time to time.

And I shudder to think that you'd call our bed a "scrap heap of matrimonial decay". That's the only place I toss her, and only when she's willing. I hope she stays willing as long as I'm able!

I'll be back - gotta get my slap on.

OK now I really am crying

Yes, and they sleep quite a lot, too, don't they?

A Chef, eh? I like Chefs. Jamie Oliver types are dead sexy.

Ah, you have escaped the exploding Tourette's gentlemen, yes?

So Lear, I'm just curious: does your RL wife know about your SL activities? Is she in SL herself? I'm not going to bust your chops about it; I'm just always curious about these things.

Bye, Jig!! This one's for you:

They do! And what's funnier is how they can be rip roaring around the house and then suddenly fall over asleep right in the middle. SO cute and hilarious.

This is a 'me too' post....... Poor guys......

The explanations for the prevalence of monogamy in most cultures are usually evolutionary, as in Smith's post here:


While I think "nature" has a great deal to do with these things, I am more inclined to blame "nurture," i.e., culture, for monogamy. I think it is a mechanism put in place by a male-controlled culture to ensure that the offspring of a relationship belong to the male partner; you can see this most obviously, culturally, in expectations surrounding social and economic functions like inheritance laws.

Which SHOULD suggest that a gynocentric or lesbian community should be able to free itself of this. If they cannot, is it that a reflection of our Pavlovian conditioning by a phallocentric culture?

Another 'me too' post......just curious, not 'attitudinous'. /me looks around for Pep, knowing 'attitudinous' is not a word.

OK, from someone who's shared her bed with other women since she was 19....we ain't no delicate flowers Jig honey. We girls do our fair share of gross stuff in our sleep too. Don't *even* get me started.

You left out the part where women gain resources from a marriage or marriages... I blame both sexes equally Actually I don't blame either. Nature does things for a reason. And the Universe gave us free will besides that.



I would not make any assumptions about gay people based on evolution for reasons I won't go into... Basically I believe it is not the same model but Nature trying out to see what else might work...

PS - Let's stop blaming the penises for all the troubles... last time I checked, lots 'o lesbians were still buying up the big hard ones at the women-owned naughty shops

LOL... thank you... although had any girl I've ever been with done something inadvertently gross it was politely ignored and erased from my memory banks!!

I was wondering who all those people were I saw leaving your flat last week...

Totally agree with this.



Excellent question that I will have to ponder further. In my own case at least, I think part of the problem is that I am unfortunately located in one of the most ass-backwards parts of the U.S. as far as social culture is concerned. I'm a transplant from up north, and the social climate on these types of issues is in my opinion, extremely antiquated. So I think location plays a large part as well.

Love the idea of multiple partners in theory, but in practice? Who has the time?

Maintaining a worthwhile relationship with one woman is more than enough work for me

That said, I am not the jealous type unless I am feeling neglected... and even then I am more apt to just wander off than get annoyed over it...

OMG Hammie, you're in rare form

True, but it's because of the *cough* um...sensations *blush* they provide. It's definitely not because we are trying to reproduce the male presence in our boudoirs. Hell, the best thing about those things is that there's no man attached!

Wazzat? *snkx*

Don' ask me nuffin before I has coffee...

Well . . . yes. And no. The Universe gave women a free will; and then men took away much of their ability to act upon it.

"Free will" is the "culture" part of the equation. And for a very very very long time, "culture" was pretty much monopolized by masculine authority. I don't want to be reductive about this: of course there were benefits to women from monogamous relationships. Nor do I wish to suggest that women were utterly without power in the various different incarnations of "culture" that have existed in the past (I speak largely of the West here; I'm not qualified to comment on other cultures.)

But there are cultural reasons, enforced by a male-dominated society, that explain why female "virtue" and "chastity" and "fidelity" have always been more highly prized than the male equivalents. In a culture, for instance, where inheritance laws rely upon patrimony, it was important that the male ensure that it was HIS offspring that inherited. Men have always been allowed (or even encouraged) to "sow their wild oats" before marriage; women have not, because women were viewed as a sexual commodity (who wants "damaged" or "used" goods?), and premarital promiscuity was viewed as a sign of potential marital infidelity.


And there's nothing wrong with penises. I am quite fond of them myself. It's the baggage that comes attached to them that is the problem.