Tentative Defence of Monogamy

I would be the last to deny the promiscuous nature of man. It is evident that many of the failings of modern-day coupling and marriage is due to the fact that it is imposed upon an instinctive beast that has little ability to control itself through the intellect and must be coerced, threatened, rewarded, and/or indoctrinated into a moral dogma in order to remain disciplined and moderate.
Common man – governed by a need that emerges in times of indigence – has carried this superfluity like a camel carries its hump into a luscious rainforest.
This doctrine of excess, which forces out behaviours of gluttony, is an expression of undiscriminating tastes, and subdued palates, more interested in quantity than quality.
The practice of suppressing natural sexual drives, that sometimes threaten social order and harmony, has been a deciding factor in the emergence of civilizations, and complex human economic and cultural structures. It enables the full participation of males/females in the system, and their investment in the system itself, transmutating them from toxic, rebellious vagabonds, and/or indifferent passive observers, into intoxicated defenders and guardians of cultural norms. This institutionalized imposition of monogamy on an otherwise polygamous species has been relatively successful, though continuously problematic, mostly through the utilization of authority and moral dictums to restrict female sexual options, referred to as paternalistic.
But, I am going to dare to describe, and defend, a spontaneously emerging form of monogamy that is not a product of moral and cultural coercion, nor a result of paternalistic social order, but more a product of refined tastes and ennobling psychological predispositions.
It would be remiss of me to neglect to state, at this crucial point, that the creation of distinction and refinement could only happen, ironically, in times of superfluity and in ages of resource abundance, for in times of poverty all, by necessity, are forced to become ascetics and minimalists, and it is only superfluity which creates the necessary environments for leisure to become common, freeing mental and physical energies from survival necessities, resulting in the emergence of heightened awareness and wisdom. This spiritual refinement, in question, is often shaped by hypersensitivity, and an over-abundance willfulness, cultivating a discriminating palate and a stringency of selectivity, which should not be misconstrued for snobbery, or pretentiousness. It is this discriminating willfulness that may produce a spontaneous form of monogamy, which is entirely different from the previously described forms of socially and morally imposed institutionalized monogamy.
Since metaphor and allegory are the best ways to become precise, while still remaining discreet and indirect, I begin by encapsulating my perspective, of this more noble form of monogamy, with symbolism:
Let us then take wine as a substitute for mating, since it is an unnecessary aspect of individual survival, just as sexual reproduction is, while still retaining the attraction and sweetness associated with coupling.
The common man, with his unsophisticated tastes and an anesthetized palate – gluttony-sometimes reaching the proportions of alcoholism – may find that all wines are, in general, the same, or similar enough to not be significantly differentiated, since all that is really is at stake here, for him, is access and availability. In other words, the average man wants wine on his table – if it is his preferred beverage – as a sign of his growing affluence, evidence of his happiness, and/or conformity. Its quality, its distinctive bouquet, the year and the region it was harvested in, is of little, or no, importance to him. For him the experience of wine drinking is merely encompassed in the general sensation of swallowing and tasting its broad and obvious aroma, and in the inevitable intoxicating effects, and the ‘high spirits’ it inevitably produces, i.e., the wine’s comforting and calming effects. As such, any bottle will do, within reason – from any time and from any place – and large quantities of it are preferred so that his greedy needs are fully satiated, his belly and ego fulfilled, and his existential needs momentarily subdued and placated. Yet, for a more refined palate, one that can discern nuance and subtlety, not all wines are created equal, and the goal is not to consume as much of it, or to use consumption as a standard for image making, because his discriminating tastes are not a consequence of pretentious snobbery and feigned aristocracy but a result of an over-sensitive palate, and a hypersensitive nose, making him unable to entirely ignore, no matter how much he may try, the faint fragrances, the colours, the quiet scents, tonal textures, and distinctive after-tastes. For him the wine’s history, its symbolism, and art, are just as relevant as its consumption. He may drink, from time to time, an inferiorly fermented grape, so as to not insult a host, or to avoid making an unwarranted fuss, but given a choice he will prefer abstinence from indulging in pigswill, and fire-water. A refined palate, therefore, will choose asceticism rather than to debase and degrade himself/herself by settling for inferior products and individuals, just to quell an inner instinctive need and/or desire. He will see any submission to his appetites, which often demand compromises of great proportion, as a defeat, and the potential loss of dignity, often experienced in hindsight.
We must keep in mind, again, that this refined taste is not an act of conceit but a product of awareness. It stems from an extreme sensual perceptiveness (hypersensitivity) that is inescapable, as no man can blind himself to what he sees, nor ignore, for long, what he hears; it also stems from a deeper appreciation of emotions and of oneself. It is an appearance of pride we call nobility. Subsequently, what a common man calls ‘love, compassion, loyalty, responsibility, commitment, and empathy’ pales in comparison to what a noble mind understands them to be.
If we are to attempt a better understanding of hypersensitivity (awareness, refinement) we must use, once more, some figurative symbolism to aid us:
Two men walk into a room in which a party is going on. The first is a common, average man for whom the scene is a joyful one, full of smiling faces, mirth, clinking glasses, the din of casual conversations, the smells of food, engulfing him in a kaleidoscope of pleasantries, background music, and dazzling lights. The second, suffering from hypersensitivity, perceives a totally different scene. He sees what the first man sees but also much more. He perceives a momentary frown, a glance, a stolen kiss, a discreet touch, a smirk, a subtle gesture of dismissal; he hears sarcastic vocal undertones, stomachs churning, sweat forming; he smells perfume, cologne and sweat; he knows who’s had a little too much to drink, who is walking with a limp, who’s talking with who for a length of time, who accidentally or intentionally wore mismatched socks, who just hit-on someone’s wife, and so on...
We can assume that it is possible for two individuals to experience the same event in exactly the same way, each, respectfully, perceiving it on different cognitive levels of lucidity, and of meaning, if you will. It is this higher degree of contextual lucidity that gives reality, life, and emotions, more depth and substance, for the noble spirit. Love is more precious, for such an individual, and not something he gives out lightly; his compassion is more profound and valuable; his loyalty more true and precious; his friendship deeper, weighted with imperceptible meanings and gravitas. This, hypothetical, noble spirit, of refined tastes and heightened awareness, takes responsibility seriously, and that’s why he accepts demands, so rarely; he approaches commitment with austerity, and that is why he rarely offers promises that internally bind him, like they do few others. For him love/hate, loyalty/betrayal, compassion/cruelty, mean so much more than for the common man that enters relationships of enmity, or of camaraderie, blindly and full of insincere innocence, delusional confidence and naïve hope, derived from an absence of mindfulness, and an inability to self-discipline. That’s why Christianity and Democracy, or any ideology that institutionalizes emotions and behaviours, is anathema to him. Compassion and love are precious things to a noble spirit; precious things beyond measure, offered only to the worthy and to those that have earned his trust and loyalty, not to be given away indiscriminately because of some moral code or ideological dogma. That is why his emotions are so much more weighty and meaningful and not just words that lead to ephemeral commitments of need, guided by impulses seeking immediate gratification.
Common love relationships often begin with an attraction based on superficial criteria. A man may just be attracted to a woman’s form, her smooth skin, or wavy hair; a woman attracted to a tall, dark, and handsome man, or a rich man, or a man of status, and so, in time, reality will inevitably disenchant them from their magical fantasies, building alternate realities on intoxicating clouds floating on premises of how things could be, or should be. Sometimes shallow relationships are a product of physical needs and social imperatives that force two people into each other’s spaces for better, or for worst, often the second more than the first. Shallow choices lead to shallow lives where often the sense of something missing is felt, finding relief by blaming another, or incomprehensible circumstances, but rarely one’s own convictions and judgements. Errors are repeated, over and over and over again, because the cause is never correctly, and clearly, identified.
In comparison noble love relationships are more difficult to find and so much more valuable and stable. It is difficult enough to nourish nobility and remain true to its inner calling, in an ignoble world of superficiality and vulgar narrowness; it is rare that the ‘right’ genetic and environmental circumstances will arise in an individual at all, and that the right balance of strength and consciousness will coincide in a single entity, so two such noble spirits finding each other is a rare thing indeed, especially when one considers their solitary and shy nature. This is what makes them precious and an exemplification of idealistic romantic love. Their rarity and value is due to the fact that they are based on more than just mere lust, but exhibit a spiritual interconnectedness where two people become united in more than a physical way, even if, admittedly, the physical is always the first connection. Here the mind takes precedence and decides when to suppress and when, and how, to express desire and need.
This nobility of spirit, this refinement of taste, forces the individual, endowed with it, into some uncomfortable choices: either find solace in solitude and self-imposed celibate asceticism, through the selective denial of instinct – as many sages have done – so that no great compromises are made, and no loss of self-worth ensues, or search and wait for that single one, that diamond in the dirt, that lives-up to heightened standards and meets reality eye-to-eye; that gives as much as it takes and understands the entirety of what commitment, loyalty, trust, compassion and finally love entails. Only nobility can truly love whereas a common man merely lusts and covets.
Respectively, mind/body dichotomies manifest differently, for men and women. For the man a woman is a means. If he is average, his options are mediocre, and equally satisfactory. His only issues are his physical burdens – past imposing limits upon the gratifications of his needs. A man is easily pleased, in this area.
For an above average male, the options may be unsatisfactory, but he will make use of whatever he can find, restricted, as he also is, by his past/nature, and the culture, the socioeconomic environment, he is forced to function within.
He may seek the above average, but also be aware that he may not find it; if he does, it may, very well, not present itself as willing.
For a woman a man is a possibility, to become, for him, a means to shared ends. She is the one who appreciates merit and gives it an avenue to express itself, in time/space.
The end, in both cases, is an object/objective that may, or may not, be common...
Barry Schwartz (Paradox of Choice) offers an interesting exposition of how, and why, superfluity, as we experience it in modern systems, creates more alienation, accentuating the intrinsic lack present in all existence – absence of absolutes. Man feeds the symptom and leaves the dis-ease intact.
With all this abundance is modern man happier, or healthier? With all this information available and accessible, is modern man wiser than the ancients, more fulfilled? With all this free flowing indiscriminate, in theory, love/lust, is modern man content, gratified; does he love himself more?
The mind that knows not itself, seeks in all a possible final fulfillment. Gratification becomes its end, because it cannot externally reach the source of its internal needs/desires.
When the past is ridiculed, or dismissed as ‘done with,’ then what is left, is the immediate sensation of inescapable, and incomprehensible, need/suffering.
In the area of human bonding (mating) the limits imposed by the very nature of sexuality are an issue to be overcome. The modern considers an intimate bond, a prison cell, associating ‘giving one's self’ to another, as a kind of eternal bondage.
Promiscuity, as it evolved, is a result of biological weakness. Unable to become immortal, or to self-replicate effectively, an organism samples, diversifying its options, so as to gain an advantage in the realization of a few attainable goals.
The environment, with its chaotic unpredictability, makes the organism vulnerable to its fluctuating energies. To compensate, the organism spreads itself thin, trying to cover and encompass spatial ground, hoping to deal with its temporal limitations.
[ MANifesto: Masculine/Feminine – Male – Male Promiscuity][ MANifesto: Masculine/Feminine – Female – Female Promiscuity]
Supply/Demand – Economics of Heterosexuality
Monogamy, in the human species, can be explained using modern market economics. It is either the product of having no access to the supply, settling for what is available to meet the demand, or it may be a product of a refined demand unable to be supplied, settling for what is available.