The Death of Sex

And Other Disagreements

Wow, there’s a lot of work to do to define monogamy!

One problem with definitions is that they tend to be specific to particular cases, particular disciplines. Even when two people are literally talking about the same thing, they may use different words because of the differences in the way that thing affects their discipline.

So in our ‘Death of Monogamy’ letter exchange, we are finding ourselves discussing, at some length, the definition of ‘monogamy’ including the importance of sex therein!

This is not a real ‘post’. It certainly doesn’t fit my ideal. It is mostly a copy/paste of several exchanges and comments from the previous posts so that readers who have not been following every word won’t miss some important issues. And it is an ‘interim’ post… it is not a reaction to his last post, nor meant to be the post he responds to (although he is welcome to).

The Ideal

What is monogamy in the ‘ideal’? What is marriage in the ‘ideal’? What is an ‘ideal’?

J. Daniel Sawyer

and I disagree rather firmly on this point. His ideal seems to stop just where mine seems to begin.

Webster’s 1828 Definition ‘ideal’

IDE'AL, adjective Existing in idea; intellectual; mental; as ideal knowledge.

There will always be a wide interval between practical and ideal excellence.

1. Visionary; existing in fancy or imagination only; as ideal good.

2. That considers ideas as images, phantasms, or forms in the mind; as the ideal theory or philosophy.

Webster’s 1828

Merriam Webster Current Definition ‘ideal’

2 of 2

noun

1 : a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence

2 : one regarded as exemplifying an ideal and often taken as a model for imitation

3 : an ultimate object or aim of endeavor : GOAL

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideal

Chesterton’s ‘Feminine Ideal’

https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/the-feminine-ideal

Lewis’s High Ideals

https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/high-ideals-by-cs-lewis

My Attempt at ‘Ideal’

1) The definition. A meter stick, according to definition, would be exactly X long... where X is defined according to the speed of light and some such. No meter stick in the world is exactly this long. It's not even possible to create one.

2) The practical. We can all go down to Lowe's and buy 'meter sticks', tape measures, etc. The 'meter' that they measure is close enough for the work that we do.

3) The ideal. The ideal meter stick... what would it do? They are making ones now that can measure a room from the middle, there are some that make the mark for you, that will even make the cut for you, my son has a guide on his table saw that you can set to a meter, or half a meter, and help you cut a big board...

So in social science, or in biology, we routinely talk of all three of those. The kidneys might be ' a pair of blood filtering devices that sit...'. Nobodies kidneys fill all of the definition perfectly, given disease, genetic abnormalities, etc. And the idea kidneys... perhaps those that Superman has, would do their job perfectly, instantly, etc etc.

J. Daniel’s Ideal

Definition: A stick used for measuring a meter, often with subdivisions on it demarcating centimeters and/or millimeters.

The Practical: A stick that's as close to a meter long as can be made with available tools or technologies, that is close enough to the tolerances that it can do the job demanded of it. Machining tolerances require a much higher degree of precision than framing tolerances, so a different grade of meter stick would be used.

The ideal: A measuring stick that is exactly a meter long.

Your set of definitions confuses "ideal" for design considerations that are more-or-less analogous to metaphysical concerns. It is as if you're trying to be Platonic, but the considerations are completely muddled up with practical questions. The two don't work together. An ideal platonic sphere can be expressed mathematically in a single statement--there is no room in the ideal for "What color should it be?" because color isn't a necessary property of a sphere.

J. Daniel Sawyer

For another view of ‘The Ideal Marriage’ I would recommend a glance at the book by that name, written in 1926.

Moving Forward

So as we look at the ‘ideal’ in the area of monogamy, polygamy, polyamoury, and sex we will need to keep in mind these differences. His use of ‘definition’ and ‘practical’ both fit into my concept of ‘practical’, his ‘ideal’ is close to my ‘definition’, and he leaves off my ‘ideal’ completely.¹

Which last seems to colour a lot of our discussion. In any literature discussion marriage, husband and wife, family, and the like there are dozens to thousands of references to concepts that go well beyond anything he discusses. When Adam says “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”² Or when Solomon says, “I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies.” My view is that they are not merely saying ‘We have an erotic pair bond’, but expressing the ideal of marriage… a goal and vision statement that goes well beyond the mere practical.

He writes:

To bring it back to monogamy, you define monogamy as "The social practice of having a single sexual partner for life." But that's not the definition of monogamy. The definition of monogamy is, and always has been, "having one spouse." It's *literally* in the word roots. Your statement is an ideal statement that's obfuscated by the "social practice" clause, but social practices are practical issues, not definitional or ideal issues. "The social expectation of having a single sex partner for life" would land closer to the mark where you're concerned, but that is also not monogamy. We already have another word for that: chastity.

To express what I think you're trying to express, you'd have to break it down thusly:

Definition: The social custom of having a single spouse, and the expectation that this custom will be followed.

Practical: The demands of a single spouse and the home which the marriage comprises form the organizing principle of the family and the society built around it. Compromises to make it work, including support of extended family, legal sanctions and privileges, divorce, prostitution, or covert adultery customs are often required, even if regrettable.

Ideal: In the ideal state, each person is only ever sexually bonded to a single other person, forming a spiritual union that resonates in eternity (this is more or less the Apostle Paul's definition).

--- --- ---

The reason for my irritation is that you've demanded, over and over again, that there are three prongs and things would be easier if I would just give in and stick to them--unfortunately, you've only ever elucidated the one, you've elucidated it poorly, and your definition is both incoherent and idealized, thus overturning the entire apple cart that you're trying to use to set the stage.

Which is far, far from anything I am trying to express.

In my first post I wrote:

Definition: “The social practice of having only one sexual partner for life.”³

Ideal: the moral vision, The idealised couple is ‘in love’, and does have recognition from the wider society. (And the husband brings the wife roses, and she makes him a sandwich while he watches football, and all of their sex is awesome and when they are both fully in the mood…)

Practical: the practical out-workings.The practical couple may be married after a death of a previous sexual partner, and the relationship may end in divorce, not death.

And say, “as I propose it both the ideal and the practical are in tension with the core definition. The one pointing beyond, the other pointing beneath.”

One huge difference that I have noted is that in his three parts, his ‘definition’ and his ‘practical’ involves both society and the individual marriage. But his ‘ideal’ only concerns society. He gives no vision for what the ‘ideal’ monogamous marriage would be. When the engaged girl lays on her bed, or the ten year old girl… what do they envision? What are their hopes? Ditto the boy, and the parents, and the pastor, and the great Aunt who lives in Idaho.

And my definitions, too, don’t fully cover both the society and the individual marriage. Need to work on that :)

To See the Ideal

Just a very quick note: To see what people see as the ‘ideal’ in their ‘gamy’ (ie marriage) one quick thing to do would be to read their marriage vows.

Traditional-ish

I [name] take you, [spouse name], to be my [husband/wife],

To have and to hold

From this day forward,

For better, for worse,

For richer, for poorer,

In sickness and in health,

To love and to cherish,

Until death do us part.

Traditional Viking Wedding Vows:

I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded spouse, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. By the strength of Thor's hammer, I vow to protect and cherish you. By the light of the sun and the power of the gods, I pledge to love and honor you always.

There shall be one end for us both; one bond after our vows; nor shall our first love aimlessly perish. Happy am I to have won the joy of such a consort; I shall not go down basely in loneliness to the gods of Tartarus.

With this ring, I thee wed. I give you my heart and soul, and promise to love and cherish you always. I promise to be your faithful partner, to stand by your side through thick and thin, and to love and support you for all eternity.

Orthodox Jewish Blessing

⁷ Blessed are you, Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, who creates happiness and joy, groom and bride. Exultation, delight, amusement, and pleasure, love and brotherhood, peace and friendship. Soon, Lord our God, may the sound of happiness and the sound of joy and the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride be heard in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem — the rejoicing of groom from their huppahs and youths from their singing banquets. Blessed are you Lord who makes the groom rejoice with the bride.

Some Interesting Outside Articles

---

Sexual Restraint

Sexual Restraint Helps Cultures Flourish, Immorality Brings Decay, Researchers Find

J. Daniel Sawyer

Forgive me for not being impressed. The author, like the researcher he sites, is looking in the wrong place and at the wrong things, and is begging several questions in the bargain. The author of the piece-as-written is also flat wrong on several matters of fact, such as the significance (or lack thereof) of the 60s sexual revolution--hard to blame him given the propaganda on the subject, but nevertheless.

The problems with our culture lie much further upstream than any of this stuff.

To be fair to the author of the article, he acknowledges that possibility, but he doesn't seem to take it seriously.

Certain kinds of sexuality dysfunctions (esp the rapid and ubiquitous emergence of transgenderism) reliably materialize at a certain point in cultural decay--but they are neither the cause of the decay nor can addressing them effect any meaningful change. And, frankly, before surgeries and hormones, there was little about such trends that was worrisome in-and-of-themselves.

---

Women Losers (Not)

Are Women the Biggest Losers of the Sexual Revolution?

An interesting article and worth reading. End left me a bit cold, because, like so much of the commentary on the subject, it stops short of where it obviously is heading.

J. Daniel Sawyer

Von

Where do you see it heading? I often have the same feeling... like the author stopped half way to their destination. Perhaps the Overton window is a problem?

J. Daniel Sawyer

Probably. It looked to me like it was obviously pointing at the hard-wall that small-l liberals (among whom I count myself) run into in situations like this. It's *not quite* an Overton window problem, but more an orthogonality issue.

Basically, much of our world is, in my estimation, deranged in its conversation because in the late 19th century "liberalism" became a moral system instead of a game theoretical one (I touch on this in Neo-Trads and the End of the World). Solutions to the problem are actually pretty simple if you start looking at it in game theoretical terms, but the moralistic gloss on it means that everyone keeps looking for "what should society do to make women happier" or something similar. They're looking at the wrong problem--or, to quote Raiders of the Lost Ark, "They're digging in the wrong place."

---

A Chart Which is Already Outdated

So, in the process of discussion I made a chart:

I think that I will need to add ‘permanent’ to this chart. Which will, unfortunately, put it in three dimensions and thus harder to express. Thus:

1. Open

   1. Temporary

      1. Many: Swinging

      2. One: Dating?

   2. Permanent

      1. Many: Polyamory?

      2. One: Bachelor?

2. Closed

   1. Temporary

      1. Many: Polyamory?

      2. One: Going Steady, Engaged, (Contract Marriage)

   2. Permanent

      1. Many: Polygamy

      2. One: Monogamy

I think this chart could use some filling out and defining.

Is Polygamy Polyamory or Monogamy?

We spilled a good deal of digital ink discussing polygamy.⁴ In his opinion it is a subset of ‘polyamory’, and in mine it is an exception to monogamy.

One problem is that the words ‘polygamy’ and ‘polyamory’ both share the word part ‘poly’. Which seems to make them related to each other. But I would point out that ‘monogamy’ and ‘polygamy’ also share the word part ‘gamy’… and I would argue that that is a more significant bit than the other. That the lifestyle and values of the monogamist and the polygamist have more in common that that of the polygamist and the polyamorist.

first your "monogamy" is "one sex partner for life", now "polygamy is a form of monogamy???")

J. Daniel Sawyer

Actually it was: “The social practice of having only one sexual partner for life.”

And the same issue as the previous post... that is the definition. It is neither the practice nor the ideal.

>>In my view regular polygamy (the kind that was practiced historically) is actually, looked at from its social function, a form of monogamy. It’s values and purposes are largely the same; and in stark contrast with polyamory

And when I said it was 'a form of monogamy' I said it in the context of 'its social function', 'its values', and 'its purposes' and I put it 'in stark contrast with polyamory'.

So in regular polygamy, at least in the ideal, the women, for example, only had one sexual partner for life. The values that monogamy idealizes: hetrosexual sexual practice, producing children, raising those children in a safe environment, forming those children in the value of the parents... all of these are strongly present both in historical polygamy and monogamy, and are not in polyamory.

If you are at all familiar with Jewish law, and its evolution over history, you will see that what they have considered marriage has, up until recently, included polygamy, but roundly rejected polyamory. Only recently have they rejected regular polygamy, and I'm not sure all the sub-groups have done so.

Von

Again, the ideal you're citing is incoherent.

The ideal in polygamy--or, to be specific, polygyny (there are two documented cultures that I know of that were polyandrous for a long time, and that's a whole other universe. Interesting but irrelevant to the current discussion)--was that the husband would treat wives fairly and equally and minimize conflict in his household while adequately seeing to their sexual needs (a big deal in Jewish law, as I assume you know). The practical reality was often very different, given the political considerations around inheritance, the limited resources of the husband's affections, etc.

The wife's virginity was prized in young marriages (or at least marriages where the woman was young) within the clan, sure, but given that the most common way for husbands to acquire additional wives, since pre-history, was taking them as wartime plunder, it's a hell of a stretch to say wifely virginity was ever the ideal in polygamy to the extent that it has often been in monogamous cultures and arrangements.

---- ---- ---- -----

As far as rolling polygamy around into monogamy through the back door like that, I just can't go there. I don't buy it. What we're dealing with are two sets of mating customs--one that sanctions the ongoing maintenance of multiple primary pair-bonds (polygamy) and one which does not (mongamy). Polyamory is clearly a subset of polygamy (or vice versa), which starts with multiple pair bonds, leavens it with female choice, and then splinters off in a thousand different directions from that point.

J. Daniel Sawyer

The Importance of Sex… and Virginity

Our differences in our view of the importance of sex, virginity, fornication, and adultery are so profound that I think they will take several other texts. Here is a brief glimpse:

I've got a post in the brewing on this topic, it's waiting on a couple books that are in storage in another state that I don't want to re-buy if I can help it.

The short version is that all the customs around sex are about two things:

1) Magic

2) Group Cohesion

Social customs are evolved practices that deal with the realities on the ground (in the case of sex, these realities are desire and its mismatches, pregnancy and its ramifications including inheritance, and social dominance and labor roles). Everything we've got in terms of mating customs in our cultural history (i.e. the West as it descends from Sumeria through Greece and Rome, with the admixture of Celtic and Nordic cultures, through to the present) is premised upon coping with this set of factors.

The modern era, beginning more-or-less in the late 19th century, has done away with and/or changed the pregnancy and social dominance issues. The subcontracting of social customs enforcement to the State has done away with inheritance and child support issues. At the moment, we're largely coasting on the vestiges of attitudes about the magical properties of sex, which vary quite a bit from subculture to subculture.

When the underlying game board changes, the customs shift, slowly and painfully, and explore a whole raft of new ways of doing things in order to adapt. As our civilization collapses (possibly terminally), some of the above factors are going to come back into play, but the most important one--pregnancy--won't. The understanding of female fertility has advanced to the point where the rhythm method is about as effective a the pill for birth control, and that's not a genie you're gonna put back in the bottle.

That's why I say sex-per-se (my original phrasing in my post was "who gets to bump uglies with whom") isn't particularly important to the conversation. Yeah, that's the way it's gonna get articulated once the new equation is solved, but it's not actually what all of this is about. In my view, looking at the underlying factors is much more enlightening and profitable than focusing on sex and romance which, powerful though they are in the life of the individual, have always taken a back seat to social stability and magic where customs are concerned (and you have no idea how annoying I--a radical individualist--find that statement).

J. Daniel Sawyer

This is a fascinating statement, and would seem worth another half dozen posts. As I'm sure you are aware; historically speaking sex has been seen as incredibly important. Who is or isn't have sex with who, who may or may not have sex with who, the results of sexual activity (children)... all of these have been seen as incredibly important. The linguistics... adultery, fornication, Sodomy, bastard, consummation, cheating... there is a whole vocabulary around sexual activity.

I would be fascinated (and perhaps your audience would to) in reading why, from a social science perspective, you don't see sex as important. And do you project this back into history?

In the research on 'animal monogamy' that I have done, the scientists seem to see two things as very important when speaking of whether an animal or species is 'monogamous': who they have sex with, and who they help raise children with. They use such words as 'true monogamy' to indicate species where the partners rarely 'cheat'... ie have sex with others.

So, again, I would be fascinated to hear more on this subject.

Von

Conclusion

There are a LOT of issues, both in the posts and in the comments, that look to be very fun and profitable to deal with. I think these issues are of profound importance to our society and, indeed, our families.

---

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

---

Links

The Death of Monogamy

Is Monogamy dying? J. Daniel Sawyer and I discuss the issue.

The Death of Monogamy: Definitions

The Death of Monogamy: Definitions and Dating

The Progressive Myth of Monogamy

Patriarchy Discussion

J.S. Kasimir

and I are discussing patriarchy. I’m in favour and think it inevitable. J.S… not so much.

The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Laying some foundation.

The Blessings of the Breast and the Womb: // Podcast Version The role of pregnancy, lactation, and raising children in the inevitability of patriarchy.

What is Marriage // Podcast Version: Adding the issue of marriage, and discussing meritocracy and inheritance.

Differences Make Differences: // Podcast Version Given the differences between men and women, could it be that boys are wired to do their jobs and girls are wired to do theirs?

Not in the letter exchange, but on subject:

The Feminist Problem with Patriarchy: // Podcast Version Some logical issues that feminists have when discussing patriarchy.

Virginity, Chastity, and Children // Podcast version: In a natalist society women go through two phases of life.

Single Income Lots of Kids: The old lifestyle that contrasts with the modern perversions.

Does the Stereotypical Woman have a Vagina? // Podcast Version Is it ‘prejudice’ to say women were designed to bear children?

Misogyny and Agency: // Podcast Version Is it misogyny to say that women are human beings with agency?

Gender Roles: Should you be judged on how well your fulfil your gender roles?

The Modern Problem with Math: // Podcast Version When it comes to kids, modern people can’t count.

INCHEL: // Podcast Version: Involuntarily Childless Women

Generational Wealth: The Foundation

Rights, Wrongs, and Affirming Gender

Depopulation Solutions: Can we solve our fertility crisis?

Problem with Patterns of Patriarchy

Fundamental Contradictions

Delphic Penumbra

The Definition of Dog: Can two men marry?

1. His ‘ideal’ seems to be focused on the Plantoic ‘ideal’, whereas mine is more of the ‘what a kid wants for Christmas’ ideal. IE my ideal is ‘what do people want, or say is best, or say is perfect, or look up to and idolize’. No carpenter would care in the slightest that his measuring tape was exactly the length of a meter in angstroms. He does care how easily it bends or breaks.

2. There is some discussion as to whether the last part of that statement was said by Adam, Moses, or God.

3. One problem with these discussions is that certain words are implied in certain cultures in certain other words. Thus I use ‘sexual partner’ instead of ‘spouse’… because while ‘sexual partner’ used to be implied in ‘spouse’, it isn’t so much nowadays, and it is specifically denied by

J. Daniel Sawyer

… who says sex isn’t that important in marriage.

4. By ‘polygamy’ I mean ‘polygyny’. I am using the common term.