Is monogamy a joke?

[Phage]

If you look at the communal evolution, or lack thereof, you find that it keeps shrinking further and further. Communities of trust and devotion are getting smaller and smaller, there are fewer people to rely on.

A long time ago, anyone in a small communal would typically assist with anyone else. Who can you trust? "Pretty much anyone here!"

These days, who the hell can you trust? Marriage in a legal system is irrelevant, and really any sort of paper contract and adding property to the pact seems to complicate everything, but it is kind of necessary I suppose since that is how our society is modeled. As for my potential wife sleeping with anyone she likes, hell no! This isn't a thing about power, it is about me not wanting her taking risks that could impact me. And I would offer the same in reciprocation. I don't go and sleep around for a couple of reasons:

1) Risk of STD. This is a HUGE risk. I don't want any of that crud. I don't want to have to choose between sleeping with my spouse or take the risk of catching something because she caught it. I don't think the benefit of a day of pleasure justifies that risk unless there is more to the equation.

2) Risk of attachment. Lust is closely related to love and it is common for one to lead to the other. The more individuals you add into that equation the more risk for complexity in a relationship. Suddenly Joe or Jim or Moe that your spouse slept with for fun now needs something and your spouse feels inclined to take from the resources you have pooled in expectation of supporting your immediate family in order to support someone else that you may not even know/like.

3) Risk of idealization. It is SO common to see the grass as greener. If you sleep around quite a bit then there is potential to have better chemistry with someone, even if temporary, and thus make the inference that dedicating yourself to that person would be more beneficial to spend the majority of your life with. Arguments happen, and it is perfectly reasonable to say that during some temporary argument the significant other will feel so inclined to leave for this other 'perfect' mate. So all of the sudden, the kids are crying, the spouse is leaving, and you know it is all bullshit and things most likely won't work out between those two. Even if it does work out for them, it is still a fairly significant loss for yourself and the children, unless you are a shitty parent, then it is just a loss for you.

4) Risk of impregnation. Ok so we all know what sex is biologically for, right? Of course the pill will help ensure this doesn't happen. If you are used to sleeping around, and you happen to not be on the pill right now, then you go sleep around and woops! condom didn't work like it was supposed to! There is always risk with this. I don't want to deal with complications of having to help raise the love child of Joe/Jane and the spouse.


Now, if this were in a small community where everyone assisted one another, then none of that would be a big deal, besides STD. But it doesn't work that way, and so that increases the implications of the risks.

If by some amazing contract it were possible to avoid ALL those risks (not just saying "yea I can do that" but rather ensuring it, because talk is cheap) then I suppose I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. However, the overhead seems SO steep and it seems so unlikely, to me, that it is even possible that I just dismiss the notion entirely.

I admire your clarity.

I took a marriage and families class and that statement upset and so did a lot of other things in the book we were expected to learn from. Like "true love" doesn't exist it is just a common myth. I don't find it unnatural to establish a monogamous relationship with another human being.

And you are right about the kids aspect. The family can be broken in pursuit of a "better lover". =/ This angers me with the 50% divorce rate or whatever the statistic is now. No one is happy because of that "idealization". No one wants to try to work things out anymore it seems.

 

[Jack]

Still beating the straw man? I haven't even thought about such scenario, so I don't even consider it. My view is that if they don't enjoy the relationship anymore, well, they are better off, no one stops them. If it is obligation, then it's not real. I don't want people who are with me just because I have money/power/assets/protection or anything else to offer. Love should not be for buying and selling.

Equal partnership and mutuality, you say...? -- Yes, and yes! Agreed. But you also say there is fundamental difference in marriage obligation with regard to children etc. But the way I see it should be done, children should not depend on their parents too. They should be provided from birth with everything that a child could need, so that parents take care of them also without obligation. Parents who support their children because of obligation is again a horrible phenomenon, I would prefer no parent at all in such case, if I were the kid.

Ah, I didn't expect someone else could see such connection. It's probably a huge overstatement of mine to compare with rape, but I mean that the whole acquisition of love, whether through social status, or through social skills, is very disturbing, even if it's technically consensual. I mentioned it in describing why marriage is currently based on very weird (coercive) elements. Ideally, no one should take care of anyone, or in need to be cared for, and only then there would be 'true love'. What we have now is much much better than in the past, I agree on that, but it's still a bit perverse. I'm quite optimistic though; it seems it's going to improve rather rapidly.

On the other hand, I think it can be seen this way.

The fear of being caged versus the fear of abandonment.

In other words, freedom versus security.

Some people might desire the intimacy and closeness of an exclusive liftime relationship

Others might want the freedom of no strings attatched.

Why not have both options available, for those looking for them?

 

[That Girl]

In other words, freedom versus security.
Some people might desire the intimacy and closeness of an exclusive liftime relationship

Others might want the freedom of no strings attatched.

I don't see how a relationship with more than two individuals couldn't be equally as intimate and secure.

 

[myst]

Hmmm. I knew a group of people who were all "dating" in high school. It was odd because there were two girls and two guys but you couldn't tell who was more together. The girls held hands with each other and so did the boys; then they would switch it up. They all legitimately seemed to care for each other as a sort of family unit. I haven't been in contact with them since high school but I never heard of them breaking up.
I know that's not marriage or anything but I could see it as being a positive thing. The kind of polygamy in society today is usually a man with a multitude of wives. I think it would be interesting to see a group of multiple men and women who had created a family unit. I feel like I read a book where this was common.
I'm all for how people want to live their lives as long as it isn't harmful to others. However, I prefer not sharing.

I think Alice Walker has a book about that. I can't remember which book though. Maybe Temple of My Familiar. Interestingly I heard her daughter on NPR talking about how terrible her relationship with her mother is- they weren't communicating- because she needed more stability and less feminist rule-breaking than her mother provided growing up. Anyway, I agree "I'm all for how people want to live their lives as long as it isn't harmful to others. However, I prefer not sharing."

 

[Gaze]

I admire your clarity.

I took a marriage and families class and that statement upset and so did a lot of other things in the book we were expected to learn from. Like "true love" doesn't exist it is just a common myth. I don't find it unnatural to establish a monogamous relationship with another human being.

And you are right about the kids aspect. The family can be broken in pursuit of a "better lover". =/ This angers me with the 50% divorce rate or whatever the statistic is now. No one is happy because of that "idealization". No one wants to try to work things out anymore it seems.

I strongly agree. Yeah, this whole "there's always someone "better" and no one is ever good enough - that there is a right and perfect partner" has lead to the break up of some relationships, which if they tried to work at it could've become lasting, successful, and satisfying partnerships. I don't see having more than one partner as being more liberated than choosing to be with one person. And a "better lover" of course doesn't necessarily make a good much less better partner. The idea that you haven't lived or really loved unless you've tasted or had at least two or more fish in the sea is misleading.

 

[Quinlan]

I think where we draw the line between natural/unnatural is pretty much arbitrary.

 

[Phage]

I think where we draw the line between natural/unnatural is pretty much arbitrary.

I agree. I thought it was foolish of them to say monogamy was unnatural when it's up to the people what they want. It's like asking what is the best color in the world. I'd say purple... Others would say minty green... It depends. That's one of the problems I have with sociology. It tries to simplify what is complex and some things just aren't meant to be so simplified.

 

[waterbaby]

I agree. I thought it was foolish of them to say monogamy was unnatural when it's up to the people what they want. It's like asking what is the best color in the world. I'd say purple... Others would say minty green... It depends. That's one of the problems I have with sociology. It tries to simplify what is complex and some things just aren't meant to be so simplified.

I completely agree. I fail to see the value of an intimate relationship (for me) that is not monogamous, but that's what's right for me. I've known people who get bored of one person in practically an instant, and that works for them. I wouldn't advise anyone to spend their lives in an endless pursuit of one night stands, but I suppose a person happy doing that wouldn't be asking. In between that spectrum, many people find happiness with just one person at a time, but don't want to sustain it for longer than a few years. Again, it's very personal.

 

[VivaCohen]

I'm not sure that monogamy being "natural" really matters all that much. I mean, humans do a lot of things that aren't "natural" that our ancestors never did but have been beneficial to us. You could argue, however, that monogamy would make it easier for a man and a woman to ensure that their offspring survives into adulthood, and therefore continues their genetic line. Just a thought.

Also, another theory I've heard, is that women in the past needed to invest in a man. A man can have lots of children but women must be selective as when they're pregnant they'll stay that way for 9 months, then be taking care of a baby until they're old enough to take care of themselves... even if men weren't prone to this as biologically they are just trying to keep their genetic line going, once they do have offspring it would make sense to invest in their well-being and survival.

 

[That Girl]

You could argue, however, that monogamy would make it easier for a man and a woman to ensure that their offspring survives into adulthood, and therefore continues their genetic line. Just a thought.

Wouldn't having more than two people around to protect and raise a child be better at ensuring this? I feel as if there would be a more solid support system.

 

[VivaCohen]

Wouldn't having more than two people around to protect and raise a child be better at ensuring this? I feel as if there would be a more solid support system.

No I don't think so. Of course if you have a large support system that's wonderful, but genetically speaking, only those two people, mother and father, would be biologically invested in the continuation of that genetic line.

 

[That Girl]

No I don't think so. Of course if you have a large support system that's wonderful, but genetically speaking, only those two people, mother and father, would be biologically invested in the continuation of that genetic line.

What about "It takes a village to raise a child?" Wouldn't there still be the investment in the continuation of the community? A lot of African cultures believe in this school of thought.

 

[VivaCohen]

What about "It takes a village to raise a child?" Wouldn't there still be the investment in the continuation of the community? A lot of African cultures believe in this school of thought.

This does make sense for communities who live this way, but even that has to do with survival and genetic lineage, and even in those cultures, no one is as invested in that particular child as those two people.

So while tribes and certain cultures are invested in the community, a large part of that stems from the fact that this community culture helps them survive personally, so it makes sense to raise other children as their own. It also makes sense to have a larger and healthier community than say, the community down the road who they are competing with.

There's also the idea that if there weren't some amount of commitment then the male's resources would be spread over a greater number of offspring, significantly lowering the chances of each individual offspring surviving. So there is a valid argument that investing in one partner would have helped our ancestors reach their goal, continuing their genetic line.

You also saw this community raising of children with slavery during the Civil War when slaves would raise the children communally through kinship, and it was a huge benefit to many of their survival. So I'm not saying there is only one way to go about raising a child or that monogamy is the only route. I'm just saying that there is a valid argument for monogamy if you look at it in historical terms.

Like I said, I don't think we can really apply what our ancestors did to what we do today. The factors have changed.

 

[Ecton]

One of the difficulties I've witnessed in polyamoury can be working out parenting relationships when there is no clear biological father. But this is something that can be overcome both scientifically and socially. I've never known a poly amorous group for more than a few years, so I don't know what the long term stability is like. For myself, I enjoy my atomic family as a one-on-one relationship. I'm not concerned that I'm missing something. But I hold nothing against any group that is devoted to its children and puts their interests above personal social status.

 

[bamf]

I say what ever floats your boat, and keeps the boat floating for all involved.

 

[Norton]

Most people aspire to be monogamous. Whether they succeed is another matter. I'm hopelessly monogamous and have been for 35 years. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. On the contrary, I'm quite happy with my marriage.

 

[Faye]

I've met several people who believe that you should have about 4 different long term partners throughout your life. I can't say I really know what is best. I used to idealize the one true love ideal, but the years of loneliness have eaten away my capacity to appreciate such notions; these things seem unrealistic to me now, having seen so few with so much bitterness.