Once in a while I indulge in stream of consciousness writing. Just writing as fast as I can on whatever pops into my mind. That's not my usual style. Usually I have a plan in mind (like when I write an article for the paper). But there are exceptions.
Recently, I did some stream of consciousness web surfing. We all do that, don't we?
It was prompted by my recent "Five questions" post and the discussion of polyamory (responsible non-monogamy) that followed. To one post, I asked aloud of anybody knows how past matriarchal societies worked.
My friend S read about it, and she sent me a long excerpt from an article.
Parts if it follow:
| Sanctioned polyandry (multiple husbands) is almost exclusive to matriarchal societies, where property, sovereignty, etc. pass along the female line. A powerful woman with many husbands was well provided for, as were her children. Such societies had no problem with over-population (more men with less women make less babies) and could boost their population by "evening out" the distribution of men. Sadly, once men realize their sperm's contribution to the offspring, a matriarchal society quickly becomes a patriarchal one. |
She wrote about the Pahari (Parbate, Khasa or Chetri) people of Nepal.
| Polyandry is apparently widespread (several brothers, in particular, may share one or more wives), but other marital arrangements are certainly more common. Some families have an equal number of husbands and wives. In a few, one husband has several wives. And some families have only one husband and one wife. Most girls are married before they are 10 years old, though they do not cohabit with their husbands until they are mature. There is a double standard of sexual behavior for women, who must be faithful to their husbands while living with them. When a married woman goes home to visit her parents, however, she is permitted the liberties of an unmarried girl. |
Evidently the Brahmins had taken Mongol women as slaves, resulting in a shortage of women, which forced the Mongol men to share wives. "Hence the extreme polyandry practiced in the Himalayas."
| Their social system was matriarchal and not patriarchal. Mother is the central figure in the family, and her progeny is known by her "gotra." Daughter, even after her marriage, remains in the mother's house, and her husband comes every night to her house for sleeping. Authority of the maternal uncle is greater than the paternal uncle. The heirs to property are matrilineal, the legacy going to his sisters' sons and not his own. This system is called "Maru-makka-tayam". Even the kingship or priesthood devolves in this fashion. Kingship of Trivankur-Kochin is the same. Previously, the system of polyandry prevailed. After "talikettu kalyanam," a Nayar girl was free to live with a man of her choice. In north Malabar, to have relations with one man at a time was the customary rule, but in south Malabar, woman got more respect if she had more lovers. However, it was customary that this number should not exceed more than 10 or 12. The men used to arrange their turns and also divide the expenses. Men also were free to have relationships with many women. When a woman returned the clothes given to her, he understood the relationship is finished. Many times, a number of Nayar brothers had only one common wife among themselves. |
I tried to look up more about them in Wikipedia. I read about the Nair people, but they are from southern India. Their system of inheritance was called Marumakkathayam, but it is not in effect any longer.
Ah, I never studied anthropology, and some of the concepts are a little too complex for me to explain confidently. One thing I did find, however, is that there are no matriarchal societies, although the question is hotly disputed.
After that, I read about the distinctions between four closely related terms: matriarchal, matrilinial, matrilocal and matrifocal. By then, my head was starting to spin.
But I wound up reading about polyandry (where a woman has a sexual relationship with more than one man). That led me to monogamy--and several different flavors of monogamy.
| --Social monogamy: Two people who live together, have sex with one another, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money. --Sexual monogamy: Two people who remain sexually exclusive with one another and have no outside sex partners. --Genetic monogamy: Two partners only have offspring with one another. |
So they are all different. None are the same.
The monogamy article says over 90 percent of birds are socially monogamous. Mammals are very different: only 3 percent are socially monogamous.
As for sexually monogamy in the animal kingdom, it is described as "quite rare."
| Whatever makes a pair of animals socially monogamous does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations. |
From there, I found a "Psychology of monogamy" entry. There was a section on Relationship Duration. "Many marriages end in divorce," it says, "leading some people to question the duration of marriage as a worthwhile goal. Studies of people in long-lasting marriages and studies of married couples in laboratories have identified several factors that contribute to the duration of monogamous relationships."
It has subsections on satisfaction, partner interactions and other factors that decide the duration of a relationship. There are many factors, but it winds up with this:
| One particularly interesting study asked 351 couples married 15 years or longer to list the main reasons for their marital success. Even though the spouses answered independently, the wives and the husbands produced identical lists of the top seven reasons for their success: * Spouse as best friend * Liking spouse as a person * Marriage as a long-term commitment * Agreement on aims and goals * Spouses becoming more interesting to each other * Wanting the relationship to succeed The high amount of consensus between husbands and wives suggests these factors may indeed play a critical role in the duration of marriages. |
From there, I saw links to a number of topics, including swinging. So I read that. It's a long article.
Swinging is something my wife and I have never tried. I hadn't really thought about it. The main reason is that I didn't think my wife would go for it. For another reason is that we're both a little older and bigger. Maybe that's an issue; maybe not. Another, of course, is that we'd have to do some driving to go to such a party--at least two and more likely three hours of driving each way.
It's an extensive article, with lots of interesting points, pro and con. The part I found most interesting was about the moral and philosophical objections to "the lifestyle" ... and the responses to those objections.
| Swingers differentiate between fun and friendship, and the love and companionship provided by their existing relationship. Thus, though swingers may have many sexual relationships, only a single emotional relationship exists. Although many close friendships are formed within the swinging community, swingers often feel that nothing is more important to them than their relationship with their own partner. The intimate friendships formed among swingers strengthen the primary relationship, rather than damage it. Swingers often claim that the sex they have is more intimate (rather than less intimate) because they are with a partner who encourages them to fulfill their fantasies; therefore, the partner is so confident in the relationship that jealousy is not an issue. Swingers also claim that swinging makes infidelity less likely, as they know they can have sexual contact with others with their partner's consent. Various responses exist to those who object to swinging on the basis of their faith. Many swingers feel that their activities in their own homes or private clubs, simply put, are not for others to judge. Others believe that as long as they remain in love and consider their relationships to be sacred, any playing they do does not contradict the sanctity of their relationships, and is consistent with their spiritual values. |
So there you are. It made for a long but interesting night of web surfing and link-clicking. It was nearly 1:30 a.m. before I shut down for the night.
As for all the things I read ... I'm still thinking them over.
****
Just a few quickie updates:
The new robin has been gone from her nest for the last few days. Nothing new to report.
As incredible as it may sound to some of you, I'll miss the Stanley Cup telecast Monday night in favor of a concert at a nearby city. I'll probably be writing about it with a photo or two, of course.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, we plan to start going through all the stuff at my mom's place. We'll stay down there overnight, but since the water isn't running (don't know why--have to call someone), we'll stay at a motel.
I covered the U.P. track finals on Saturday. It started at 9 a.m. and went on till about 5 p.m. Rain threatened most of the day, but only a sprinkle hit. I brought all my foul weather gear along plus a change of clothes. It never got out of the bag.
Sunday was spent catching up with my writing for the paper plus a nap with my wife in the afternoon. It was cloudy and damp--rain moved in about 7 p.m. As my dad liked to say, "good sleeping weather."
No comments:
Post a Comment