Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. The Pax Romana was an era of relative tranquility in which Rome endured few major civil wars as severe as the perpetual bloodshed of the third century AD, nor serious invasions, or killings, such as those of the Second Punic War three centuries prior Look, I'm just saying that there were a good 200 years between the end of the Pax Romana and the fall of the empire, and Pax Romana was the most laudable and enviable period of that civillisation. Citing the relationship models of that period as an example of being bad for society might be logically inconsistent. I'd also point out that Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Finland - who all rate above the US on the HDI - all have pretty lax attitudes towards monogamy - affairs outside of the marriage are generally look upon as impolite, in the sense that not holding the door for the person behind you is impolite - but as long as family duties are attended - not an issue. Africa's tribal model of polyandrous relationships succeeded in a stable and expanding population for longer then Christianity and while the model has been ascribed some negative fall out factors in the middle east in the modern era - for almost a thousand years it worked pretty well. Through south east asia and the pacific islands - Monogamy has only existed as a concept since the arrival of christian missionaries. Aboriginals a history dating back more then 40,000 years of successful poly-amorous relationships until the arrival of christian missionaries broke the culture. Hell, on a purely genetic level, it's generally better for a breeding stock population to not maintain monogamous relationships - having females of a herd birth from different sires for each pregnancy is actively recommended for maintaining strongest possible blood lines. There's not even a biological argument that favors Monogamy as an ideal. It's at best something that we have evolved socially for the good of our children - and that's a point I'd probably argue about. In terms of bisexuality and homosexuality being a product of 'Experimentation' rather then evolution - that's a very, very, very long argument that comes down to do you believe the gay biologists or the bible belt? Because they're the only people who have done significant studies into the topic and they drastically disagree with each other. Personally I'm on the side of the biologists, because they can make an argument without citing Leviticus. But you're welcome to believe whoever you want. Homosexuality exists in approximately the same percentage of almost every mammal biologists have observed as it does in humans. It exists in amphibians, fish, birds and reptiles. There are dozens of studies showing mirrors for human responses to homosexuality in animal species. Bisexuality occurs almost as widely. That said, note the word product of our evolutionary history. The current best theory for bisexuality or homosexuality is that it's a population regulator and response to overpopulation. But that's one of a few dozen theories that holds slightly more water then the others - but is still a long way from being a proven fact. Sexuality is a product of our evolutionary history and our social influences - I'm using the term product in a mathematical context - you get the end result from the two factors interacting. We are what evolution and society made us. The question is are we evolved enough to over come some of the stupider parts of what those things made us.
Wait wait wait...worked well for whom? For the girl given to a man at the onset of her menses at 11 or 12 (because, after all, biologically she can have a child) and then required/expected/forced to have sex with him and all the males in his family so she could procreate as many times as possible and they could preserve their wealth/goats by having many children but only a few wives? Without any choice or say in the matter for her? That polyandry worked out pretty well? Sudan, Guinea, Nigeria – where women historically were shunned or chastised if they expressed any sexual pleasure (not to mention mutilated so they wouldn't) – it worked pretty well? Look, I have the utmost respect for you. You and your wife are happy and in love. I’m not saying that with the least bit of snark; I know you as well as I can e-know anybody and I know and trust that your love and affection for her is genuine. But you guys chose your life and you want to be in a poly-amorous relationship and so it is good for you. But with this “it worked pretty well” in Africa argument? Now you are doing the same thing the other side is doing – you are taking what you know works for you and applying it to all other relationships. The polyandry that existed (and is some cases still exists) in various African tribes is leaps and bounds different than the poly-amorous (loving, caring) relationship you have with your wife and others and should not enter this debate as defense that it is good – historically, biologically or otherwise. A society that forces multiple partner relationships is no more right, better or good than a society that forces single partner relationships.
Great to have scootah respond, but with that said, let me clear a few things up; Your assumptions are laughably off the mark, dude. Including myself, my family is completely secular and non-religious, and I was born in Russia. Believe it or not, there's a rational point of view for thinking monogamy won't work for most people. And really, you're using the majority of the world as an argument now? Very few societies in the world today have a lot of men and women in open relationships. What do you mean "work very well"? That's a very nebulous term. In terms of having a lot of children to help with demanding physical labor, I agree it works well in those societies. In terms of other economic considerations, like the number of women financially supported and not begging on the streets, it also worked well. In terms of the love and satisfaction of both parties in the relationship? It completely fails, as grits went into more detail above. To suggest otherwise is laughable. So you're agreeing with my main point in the first sentence, but then reject that assertion on the basis of semantic quibbles? Come on. Change "twisted" to "unusual" or "unique". The point is the same. So sure, an open relationship has worked excellently for you. Possibly a few others in this topic. I know it would not work for me, and based on what I've seen with my friends, it has failed for all of them. Psychologically, there's a reason for this. You realize this is extremely close to what I wrote originally, only with a different word choice?
I'm not sure why you're ignoring the fact that the exact same practices were equally common throughout Christian Europe through the same time period. That thinking is less then 100 years out of fashion on the west - but hung around for 1500 years beforehand. It's ignorant think that caucasian christians So we're talking about a relatively a small percentage of the populations in question, all founded by minority fundamentalist groups that continued with a lot of isolation from the bulk of their cultural population groups and heavily influenced by western trade and religious incursion from infidels (that'd be the christians) and prevailng bias against ethnic groups? If I've read like i was arguing that forcing a polyandrous model was better - That was a fuck-up on my part. My argument was intended to be that it's not any worse. I stand by the notion that it's not. I don't want to get into PC different but equal shenanigans because fundamentally I do believe that some cultures are better then others. I'm not hypocritical enough to try and sell the multicultural we're all as good as each other' line - but I do believe that polyandrous relationship models have existed in cultures at least as widely spread as the current judeo-christian western cultures where the people were just as happy. imposing technology levels prevalent in those cultures as an argument that those cultures were less functional is a fallacy - those technology levels have far more to do with agricultural circumstances and trade restrictions imposed by the judeo christian west then they do with the relationship model. Development of art, culture and experimentation with technology has a direct correlation with ease of access to calories that has been widely demonstrated by anthropological studies and trade lines and economics to the regions that we cite as being backwards are artificially crippled by governance imposed by western trade powers rather then having any relationship to how people fuck in the region. The number of goats a man can have becomes far more relevant when he can't conceivably make a living as a lawyer because his agricultural expansion trade phase has been suppressed by import restrictions to protect political groups in other countries. But fundamentally - breeding a large family so you could raise more goats was just as common in Europe in the 1500's as it is in Afghanistan today. The question of why Afghan's economy revolves around AK47's, poppy fields and goat husbandry is answered in any economics class where they talk about protectionist government.
I'm not ignoring anything, scoot. You specifically mentioned polyandry in African and I addressed that. Nope. I have family members from those specific countries and mentioned them because I didn't want to make an uneducated blanket statement about other countries in Africa. Based on what they have told me I can say with some measure of authority that sex for pleasure for women was (and in many countries still is) shunned across the continent and the practice of genitalia mutation, though waning, has been practiced across the continent. That's what is sounded like and I appreciate the clarification. I was just moments away from using my pagan Creole gift and making a voodoo doll of you which would have forced you into song and jazz-handing scenes from gay [not that way] musicals of the 40s. I guess that depends. From what I know and how I was raised I can't imagine enjoying sex with multiple men for whom I have no love and affection. Perhaps women raised in a different time and place feel differently. Not really sure what all of this is answering. If it was meant to address my goats comment I used the word because, well, it's the case. African tribes do not value the same wealth some Westerners value. Many tribes don't believe land can be "owned" in the same way Susie Suburban Soccer Mom believes she owns a brick house on 2.4 acres and, obviously, those tribal communities aren't running out to Best Buy for a 50 inch flat screen. In truth, in those tribes a man's wealth is his goats and how fat his wife/wives and children are.