Is monogamy dead?

[Druweid]

I think most or all of what I wrote is considered fairly common knowledge among historians and anthropologists who’ve studied the history of sex and marriage and is covered in a number of books. A few that I’ve either read or use as reference include...

Ah! A few more than expected. No worries, I'll be doing a bit of reading is all.

There are also a large number of research papers that cover these issues as well.

Yes, I am somewhat familiar, not with the specifics, but of the existence of such papers. My concern, however, is that there have been a number of papers and books written which I believe tend toward being subjective, that is, I believe they've been written to promote to authors personal belief of polygamy rather than with proper objectivity. But then, I'll reserve further opinion until I've had a chance to complete further research.

Please note that I never said that Monogamy was never practiced prior to the Greeks and Romans, only that it was not forced as a social norm.

Accepted and agreed, you had not out-right said it, though it had seemed to be implied. That could simply be a matter of semantics. I did not take "...concept of an expectation..." as being synonymous with "social norm."

In all likelihood the majority of married men pre Christ were actually in monogamous marriages simply due to lack of marriageable partners.

Possible, but I don't believe this was the case so very often. It doesn't fit the arguement to say that some were polygamous (as mentioned further down) and yet others were monogamous for lack of choice. Also, from a social science point-of-view, the lowest classes are almost always among the most populous.

The first time that I, or most historians, believe there was a social directive for monogamy though was Greek society.

Here is where the entire subject can become very arguable. For lack of a written record or history during the reign of the Celtic culture, much of what is known is through archeological and anthropological research. Not exactly concrete stuff. I believe, however, much of the "established" information from the above-mentioned sources is accurate, and an educated mind can make reasonable inferences from that information.

For instance, it is fairly well known and established that there was an aristocracy, possibly a royal ruling class, as far back as 700 BCE (The Hallstatt period), and likely even further in the past. I am not aware of any direct evidence discovered that proves these 'royalty' were typically polygamous, though nothing to prove they were typically monogamous either. Given that 'royalty' is usually monogamous to avoid disputes of authority, property, etc., and given that this class of people hadn't grown to a notable size over the period of 200 years, is it reasonable to believe that it may have been thier 'social norm' to be monogamous? Again, there is no solid answer, though I find it good food for thought.

Marriage for business was most common among the serfs and common classes. A man and woman needed the resources of the other to make their way in life. Love had little to do with it.

I find such statements very difficult to accept at face value. Among a merchant class, perhaps, but not among the lower classes. If you have five royals, twenty merchants, and two-hundred surfs, where is the room for "marriage for business?" The proportion in this example isn't exact, but it's well within reason for discussion. Examination of ancient grave sites in Hallstatt, Austria indicate the proportion was much wider.

Specific to the Celts you may well know more than I.

More to the point, I am familiar with the research. I could only WISH I was familiar with more firmly established facts. For lack of written records, we may never know with certainty.

However, in googling for a minute I found hundreds of websites seeming to reference that polygamy was at least somewhat common among the Celts...

Yes, absolutely, I had not disputed you earlier statement "Throughout the first whatever thousand years of human history polygyny (one man, several wives/concubines) and monogamy co-existed, as best we can tell..." I certainly concede that, for the most part, both existed in unknown proportion. May main point is that monogamy HAD existed, and that it *may* have been a social norm in some way.

Here, too, is a good point to consider; if we know with some certainty that monogamy existed, and can reasonably assume it was NOT a social norm, what might that say about monogamy unto itself? You suggested it may have been due to lack of marriageble partners. Perhaps, but what if that was NOT the case? Food for thought.

I also found a couple of sites mentioning that women (who had extensive rights under Celtic society) were allowed and sometimes encouraged to practice polyandry (1 woman, multiple husbands) both among Gaelic Celts and those on the continent...

Yes, and this may be part of the concept you presented, of working or lowerclass men seeking marriage for reasons of business or social status. Again, I believe that it may have existed, but given disproportion among the classes, was not necessarily the norm.

I will give your sources due consideration. My nature is to seek truth, not dispute.

Respectfully,
-- Druweid

 

[Verv]

Some people harken to the "good old days" in which men and women stayed married no matter what. I don't think it's that monogamy is fading so much, but that there is less of a double standard nowadays. In the good old days, women stayed home and raised children, and men worked. Men also had mistresses or saw prostitutes, and although it was not talked about, it was an acceptable practice in secret. Then women got the vote, went more into the workplace, and the concept of sexual equality was born.

I think that you are wrong. I do not think that a lot of men necessarily had mistresses or visited prostitutes. Did it happen? Sure. But was it a common place thing to do, that we should accept as a widespread reality of every day life? No, not at all.

If it was to the point where nearly all men were not faithful to their wives, I think that the men lawmakers would not have prostitution as a crime on the books in old America.

I think divorces occur more now because of the fact that people lose touch of the old values that existed. Sex used to be a meaningful act that implied the creation of children (or at least an acceptable risk thereof), and now today people kill children in the womb before they are born and have zero responsibility for sexual indiscretions (other than STDs).

The fact is that our society has fundamentally changed and liberalized (just as Greece and Rome's societies liberalized before they fell apart and died).

 

[benjdm]

I think that you are wrong. I do not think that a lot of men necessarily had mistresses or visited prostitutes. Did it happen? Sure. But was it a common place thing to do, that we should accept as a widespread reality of every day life? No, not at all.

Both sides of this are just stating opinions. Doing some research to educate myself, since I have no idea how common it was:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_071700_prostitution.htm

"Nineteenth-century prostitution was structured around three subcultures. First, about 5 to 10 percent of young females in large cities engaged in prostitution at some point, earning twice as much in an evening as factory or service employment would bring in a week."
"Second, a prominent "sporting male" subculture encouraged men to hire prostitutes. As factory work replaced the craft system, and the unregulated boardinghouse replaced the hierarchical artisan household, young males enjoyed greater freedom, and rigid sexual controls quickly vanished."
"The third subculture, part of an underground economy, was that of the brothels, which numbered in the hundreds in Chicago, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. By the time of the Civil War, New York had over five hundred, many advertising in newspapers and guidebooks."
"By the 1920s, the era of the brothel and open prostitution had ended, and significant changes emerged over the next four decades. Municipal officials grew less tolerant of the sporting male subculture. Prostitution became a clandestine activity; prostitutes no longer advertised but conducted their business in tenements, dance halls, massage parlors, "call houses," and even taxicabs."

The fact is that our society has fundamentally changed and liberalized (just as Greece and Rome's societies liberalized before they fell apart and died).

U.S. society has swung from liberal to conservative and back again many times.

 

[Seeking...]

I think that you are wrong. I do not think that a lot of men necessarily had mistresses or visited prostitutes. Did it happen? Sure. But was it a common place thing to do, that we should accept as a widespread reality of every day life? No, not at all.

If the use of prostitutes was never a commonly accepted part of society - then why is it the world's oldest profession? Why is it the thing that women know they can earn money at if all else fails? Why, even in highly restricted societies, is a prostitute just not that hard to find?

 

[FunkyBrother]

1 Corinthians in VERY CLEAR on this.

Unless people repent (stop doing it) of fornification (sex out of marriage) they will not be able to enter the Kingdom of here.

Stumbling into sin is one thing. Knowingly practicing it is another.

 

[Nymphalidae]

I think that you are wrong. I do not think that a lot of men necessarily had mistresses or visited prostitutes. Did it happen? Sure. But was it a common place thing to do, that we should accept as a widespread reality of every day life? No, not at all.

If it was to the point where nearly all men were not faithful to their wives, I think that the men lawmakers would not have prostitution as a crime on the books in old America.

I think divorces occur more now because of the fact that people lose touch of the old values that existed. Sex used to be a meaningful act that implied the creation of children (or at least an acceptable risk thereof), and now today people kill children in the womb before they are born and have zero responsibility for sexual indiscretions (other than STDs).

The fact is that our society has fundamentally changed and liberalized (just as Greece and Rome's societies liberalized before they fell apart and died).

I hate to break it to you, but people have been having sex because it's fun since the dawn of time. Societies are fundamentally the same - we are born, we work, we fall in love, we die. Nothing important changes. This whole "Back in the good old days when men were men and we didn't have indoor plumbing..." is a lie propogated by our grandparents who miss their youth.

 

[jsfox]

1 Corinthians in VERY CLEAR on this.

Unless people repent (stop doing it) of fornification (sex out of marriage) they will not be able to enter the Kingdom of here.

Stumbling into sin is one thing. Knowingly practicing it is another.

What verses in particular are you referring to and how are you equating polygyny with fornication?

 

[jsfox]

I think that you are wrong. I do not think that a lot of men necessarily had mistresses or visited prostitutes. Did it happen? Sure. But was it a common place thing to do, that we should accept as a widespread reality of every day life? No, not at all.

All that I have read on the subject indicates that the keeping of mistresses and visiting prostitutes was very common in almost every society throughout history. Technically there is little difference in a concubine and a mistress - how many men in the OT are mentioned as having concubines?

If it was to the point where nearly all men were not faithful to their wives, I think that the men lawmakers would not have prostitution as a crime on the books in old America.

Prostitution was not illegal in 'old America'. It was legal throughout the US until about 1915. Today it is legal in all industrialized nations except the US (and interestingly, guess which country has 5 times the per capita rate of rape as the others). Of non-industrialized nations it is semi illegal in most Islamic countries (technically illegal, but provisions of 'temporary wives' made in most countries) and legal in most others.

 

[Im_A]

this is just one of them discussions that will only be opinionated.

go and find points to back this and that up, turn it around, and you got your point acrossed, while the other side can do the same thing. nothing but rhetorical, especially over a beautiful topic.

all i believe is we cannot say monogamy is dead, because people out there consider it holy (whether they have sex before marriage or not.)

i don't understand why prostitution has come up in this discussion. prostitution is probably as old as sex and monogamy itself. so the comparision to get to whatever point, almost seems pointless.

we're all going to have different views on this, Christian or not. i have seen Christian couples, being very/extremely monagamous, had sex before marriage, got married and now have an awesome marriage, a beautiful little boy and a nice life. so why do i believe as they believe that God has blessed them? maybe because, they changed the way they were living before that. they repented from their lifestyle before. they became committed, mature. they became godly. it wasn't about doing physical things anymore because they were in a relationship. it was about doing physical things because it was actually meaningful, not just cause it was the thing to do and they were prepared to stand through all to be with them. that to me is godliness. and to many others that is godliness. to accept what must be done in time. to do what you have to do to bring the relationship together and better it and keep doing that. so i have nothing to say against that, because that isn't fornication by any means.

in the end, this seems to be a very controversial topic still amongst all of us. live holy in your convictions and do you best is all i can say. accept the consequences whatever choice you make. both sides can make their points through the scriptures. that's the beauty of a book being written a long time ago, in a different culture and so forth (which is why i am so thankful that the Bible is no the Word of God, Jesus is the Word of God). us 21st century folk can apply it to whatever opinion or agenda we are set with. i have my personal views, that i'm living holy and right in the best i can, and other Christians are too. God Bless you all! <><