Thoughts on monogamy in today's world?

[Hipshot1554]

Definitions are always up for discussion. I might think of it more as an open marriage.

Quite right! I looked and there are several definitions for the word. So I suppose one picks the one that feels best to them.

 

[coati]

My body, my choice.

Don't bring any STDs home, and be present for your S.O. when needed.

 

[Athalia]

The human craving for sex and for sexual variety is timeless. It is not about the social twists and turns of a time period. For a marriage to last love needs to last.

People can love a mate but still enjoy a lot of sexual variety. But if either the male or female are jealous then it is the jealousy that makes it toxic.

That really is the paradox isn't it? We have a social construct -- the value of monogamy are at least stable and committed relationships -- struggling against a physical one -- the need for sexual variety. As long as the two aren't reconciled, there will continue to be conflict.

And then there's jealousy. It can happen even without declared monogamy. I had a one-night stand with John, a guy I liked, and both of us agreed that it was just that one thing. He had a "steadY" girlfriend at the time, who was one of my best friends, but they hadn't made any real commitment to each other. (And she'd told me earlier that she'd been planning to have a one-night stand with an old friend of hers later that month.) But when I slept with the guy, she went ballistic, in a way that surprised even her. It totally torpedoed the friendship, although I never understood why.I would have been happy to share him with her, on whatever basis or for any length of time they wanted, but that wasn't going to happen. Instead, I had to promise her that John and I wouldn't see each other again.

And that ruined her relationship with John, too. She broke up with him three months later. Evidently she felt she couldn't trust him to be monogamous, even though she'd never stated that it was a condition to their relationship.

The saddest thing for me was that, after I'd slept with Joh, I actually started to have fantasies of the three of us sharing a house and maybe playing musical beds and, with luck, have it develop into a committed relationship of the three of us. That fantasy lasted a day and a half.

 

[Bramblethorn]

According to the 2019 US census https://www.census.gov/library/stor...-is-up-marriage-is-down-for-young-adults.html, 55% of people 25-34 years old lived with a committed partner. True, the percentage of married vs cohabitation has changed, but one-boy-one-girl remains very, very popular.

When looking at this kind of data it's really important to understand where it comes from, and consider whether the collection was designed for the kinds of analysis you want to do on it.

There wasn't a 2019 US census. (They run every ten years - last one was 2010, the next one is running right now.) From what I can see, the article you've linked is a 2018 report based on the Current Population Survey, which the Census Bureau has been running since 1937.

What this means is that the "structure of household" questions would have been originally designed in the 1930s by somebody who was probably thinking in terms of nuclear families - mom, pop, the kids, maybe a couple of grandparents or an unmarried sibling in the spare room - and who most certainly wasn't asking "how do I accurately capture polyamorous households?" Agencies like Census are really, really conservative about changes to their questions - they'll tweak them a little bit when absolutely forced to, e.g. the CPS form has been updated for same-sex marriage, but they hate doing it. Among other things, changes make it harder to keep the data comparable from year to year - if the numbers change, is that a real change in society, or is it because they changed the form?

Here's the demographic part of the current CPS questionnaire. It's a bit hard to follow since it's designed for use with a computer that delivers the questions, but if you jump down to the "COHAB" question you'll see an example of why it's not suitable for informing this discussion.

It asks "do you have a boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner in this household?" and if you answer yes, you then get to nominate one other person in that household as your partner. There doesn't appear any way for a person to indicate that they have more than one partner in the household. The PDF doesn't indicate the sequencing so I can't be certain, but I would bet good money that people who've already indicated "married" don't even get asked this cohab question.

And if you're living with one partner, but have another partner who doesn't usually live at the same address, nothing in this form would capture you. I've been non-monogamous for more than twenty years, most of that time with at least two partners, but at no point in my life would this survey have been able to pick me as non-monogamous - it simply isn't asking the necessary questions.

When the report says "lived with a committed partner" that should be interpreted as "lived with at least one committed partner, and we have no idea about the ones they don't live with".

 

[jehoram]

It asks "do you have a boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner in this household?" and if you answer yes, you then get to nominate one other person in that household as your partner. There doesn't appear any way for a person to indicate that they have more than one partner in the household. The PDF doesn't indicate the sequencing so I can't be certain, but I would bet good money that people who've already indicated "married" don't even get asked this cohab question.

And if you're living with one partner, but have another partner who doesn't usually live at the same address, nothing in this form would capture you. I've been non-monogamous for more than twenty years, most of that time with at least two partners, but at no point in my life would this survey have been able to pick me as non-monogamous - it simply isn't asking the necessary questions.

When the report says "lived with a committed partner" that should be interpreted as "lived with at least one committed partner, and we have no idea about the ones they don't live with".

That's the point I was making back in post #50; thanks for seconding it and approaching it from the standpoint of the mechanics of the polling. And you've pointed out that "lived with at least one committed partner" could also mean two or more committed partners in the same household.

Pigeonholes like this aren't very helpful in "spectrum" situations like this, so the results have to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's the point I was making back in post #50; thanks for seconding it and approaching it from the standpoint of the mechanics of the polling. And you've pointed out that "lived with at least one committed partner" could also mean two or more committed partners in the same household.

Pigeonholes like this aren't very helpful in "spectrum" situations like this, so the results have to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

I would add - even if the questionnaire did ask people to report all their relationships and was structured so that they could, people don't always feel comfortable reporting this kind of info to a stranger. In Utah, IIRC, reporting two partners could get one in serious legal trouble.

 

[Pantux]

I have been monogamous for 38 years (36 in marriage)some years easier than others but do believe in monogamy. It has been tough the last few years, she has been very ill and as a result not sexual. I have been tempted but I find virtual friendship and role playing has helped. I think it would be very low of me to cheat on an ill wife, it is what it is.

 

[jehoram]

I have been monogamous for 38 years (36 in marriage)some years easier than others but do believe in monogamy. It has been tough the last few years, she has been very ill and as a result not sexual. I have been tempted but I find virtual friendship and role playing has helped. I think it would be very low of me to cheat on an ill wife, it is what it is.

If you asked her, would she consent to having you seek out a "friend with benefits"? If she said "no" then you would be no worse off than now, and you might even get points for being so forthright about your respect for her feelings. If she said "yes" then it really wouldn't be cheating, would it?

I know a couple that was in that precise situation, and she gave her consent for him to seek out sex elsewhere, as long as it was safe sex and didn't impinge on their own relationship. Everybody was happy. As it turned out, it surprised nobody when, after the wife died, the husband married the lover. He was said to have his wife's blessing before she died.

 

[Pantux]

If you asked her, would she consent to having you seek out a "friend with benefits"? If she said "no" then you would be no worse off than now, and you might even get points for being so forthright about your respect for her feelings. If she said "yes" then it really wouldn't be cheating, would it?

I know a couple that was in that precise situation, and she gave her consent for him to seek out sex elsewhere, as long as it was safe sex and didn't impinge on their own relationship. Everybody was happy. As it turned out, it surprised nobody when, after the wife died, the husband married the lover. He was said to have his wife's blessing before she died.

I have started to have those discussions, she is not there yet. She is not even sure about the virtual role play etc. She know I do those. It will come it’s a matter of time and I don’t foresee the Health situation getting better any time soon if ever. She will get there, it’s a matter of time I am not sure I am completely there yet.
Thank you for your post. It gives me more to ponder.

 

[occasional_lovers]

Historically, monogamy in the Western societies has been a social structure assuring two things: Directly, that a man's property would be passed on his genuine (in terms of biology) descendants. Indirectly, that a woman would retain some rights to her husband's property in case he decided to leave her, since he would have broken the moral/religious/legal obligation of monogamy. That was the concept, and it worked -to a greater or lesser extent- in the past.

So, the question is: Is there is any social necessity for monogamy today? I think the answer is negative. On the other hand, monogamy is still a choice (and it will always be), and as a choice rather than obligation it is more authentic.

Speaking about myself, I stopped being the one-man girl since I was 25. That doesn't mean that I don't seek stability and emotional security in my relationships; I just try to find it in consent rather than in monogamy.

 

[jehoram]

So, the question is: Is there is any social necessity for monogamy today? I think the answer is negative. On the other hand, monogamy is still a choice (and it will always be), and as a choice rather than obligation it is more authentic.

I agree. There are plenty of lawyers who can write up contractual agreements to fit anybody's circumstances regarding child support, property and inheritance, without the complication of marriage contracts that imply, if not specify, a monogamous relationship.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I agree. There are plenty of lawyers who can write up contractual agreements to fit anybody's circumstances regarding child support, property and inheritance, without the complication of marriage contracts that imply, if not specify, a monogamous relationship.

You can, but that kind of thing can get expensive if you want it done right. The standard model marriage is a package deal that's cheaper than hiring lawyers to design a custom contract, and there are some things like taxes and benefits that can't always be covered by contracts between the involved parties.

If you go to a hospital where the visiting policy for critical patients is "spouses only" and tell them "we have a contract, let me in," they're going to tell you nope, because they're not part of your contract and they don't recognise it as a marriage.

 

[jehoram]

If you go to a hospital where the visiting policy for critical patients is "spouses only" and tell them "we have a contract, let me in," they're going to tell you nope, because they're not part of your contract and they don't recognise it as a marriage.

That's a good point. I think that what we have to promote is a "civil union" status that confers all the usual benefits and responsibilities of a marriage, but can be worded to include more than two people.

Will that ever happen? I imagine the religious people will bring up the old "marriage equals one man plus one woman" argument, even though that's been refuted by the Supreme Court (for now). Ironically, Utah Territory had polygamous marriages on the books, because "one man, multiple wives" was not only condoned but promoted by the Mormon church, but had to ban them as a condition for application for statehood.

It may have to happen that members of a polyamorous group sue for recognition as a civil union, thereby putting it on the docket of the federal courts. Since civil unions aren't marriages in the religious sense, and since there's nothing in the Constitution that specifies what civil unions are or how many people have to be in them, they could make the same argument that was used in recognizing civil unions for gay people. But I'm sure they'll face the same long-term uphill struggle that gays did.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's a good point. I think that what we have to promote is a "civil union" status that confers all the usual benefits and responsibilities of a marriage, but can be worded to include more than two people.

Tricky part here is that some of those "usual benefits" are based on an assumption that marriage = two people, or they're things that can be abused when the numbers aren't limited.

For instance, some states have spousal privilege laws that protect the confidentiality of discussions between spouses - e.g. a person can't be forced to testify against their spouse, and might not be allowed to testify even if they wanted to, if their spouse objected.

Now imagine an organised crime syndicate that structures itself as one big civil union so that none of them can be forced to testify... gives a whole new meaning to "Married to the Mob".

Tax codes, survivors' benefits, etc. etc. - none of these are really designed to deal with polyamorous relationships. It'd be a significant amount of work to overhaul them to prevent them from being exploited, and it would probably end up leaving some people worse off. That's a hard thing to sell.

 

[Athalia]

Tax codes, survivors' benefits, etc. etc. - none of these are really designed to deal with polyamorous relationships. It'd be a significant amount of work to overhaul them to prevent them from being exploited, and it would probably end up leaving some people worse off. That's a hard thing to sell.

These same arguments were used to justify denying women the vote, on the grounds that it would overwhelm the polling system, and for denying them the right to join the military as combatants, on the grounds that separate bathrooms and showers and so on would have to be set up. Somehow, we managed to adapt.

Concerning "spousal privilege," that's a different matter. The various states have different laws about what constitutes this privilege, and New Mexico has abolished it entirely. The federal courts, as far as I know, have never had that privilege challenged on Constitutional grounds, but it could happen, since this privilege isn't mentioned anywhere in the founding documents. It's just sort of been grandfathered in by British case law.

And I don't see how it could be much different from Mafiosos pleading the Fifth Amendment. The only difference is that you can only invoke it to save yourself from personal jeopardy, and not the jeopardy of anybody else. But the matter you're asked to testify in usually has involved you anyway, in one way or another.

All the preceding has a caveat: I have not studied law, and don't know how these scenarios would actually play out in court. I suppose we'll find out if polyamory seeks legal protection.

 

[SimonDoom]

Tax codes, survivors' benefits, etc. etc. - none of these are really designed to deal with polyamorous relationships. It'd be a significant amount of work to overhaul them to prevent them from being exploited, and it would probably end up leaving some people worse off. That's a hard thing to sell.

It would be a hard thing to sell, politically, but it would not necessarily be a hard thing to pull off as a practical matter if it was truly accepted. Society simply would have to accept a true consent/contract model for human relationships. We're still a long way from that, considering all the ways laws still don't recognize the legitimacy of, for example, contractual sexual relationship. But things like taxes, survivor benefits, etc. could all in theory be taken care of without too much theoretical or practical difficulty.

I don't see the US adopting this model any time soon, but things sometimes change fast, so who knows?

On the question of monogamy: I suspect that it will continue, vigorously, even if society comes to accept alternative arrangements, because I think it works for many people, even if with some hiccups from time to time.

 

[jehoram]

For instance, some states have spousal privilege laws that protect the confidentiality of discussions between spouses - e.g. a person can't be forced to testify against their spouse, and might not be allowed to testify even if they wanted to, if their spouse objected.

Thanks for that link on "spousal privilege." I thought it was interesting that that legal principle was once very strong, but it seems to have eroded, both in this country and in Great Britain. I can see the day when it will cease to exist at all. As the article mentioned, it was based on the concept that a married man and woman were considered a single entity, and that the ban against self-incrimination could be extended to a ban on incrimination of a spouse. While there's still religious grounds for a man and wife being "as one," I doubt if that language is used much in civil unions.

Instead, marriage is seen as a legal partnership, like a shared proprietorship in a business or partners of a corporation. And there's no legal impediment to any of those partners testifying against any of the other members.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It would be a hard thing to sell, politically, but it would not necessarily be a hard thing to pull off as a practical matter if it was truly accepted. Society simply would have to accept a true consent/contract model for human relationships.

"simply"

We're still a long way from that, considering all the ways laws still don't recognize the legitimacy of, for example, contractual sexual relationship. But things like taxes, survivor benefits, etc. could all in theory be taken care of without too much theoretical or practical difficulty.

Okay, I'll bite.

What's your simple solution for restructuring the current US federal joint filing system to make it poly-friendly?

How would you modify the VA survivor benefits system to allow for the possibility of a veteran with multiple spouses?

NB: I'm not arguing that these laws should not be changed, or that the existing system is perfect. In some cases, the difficulties arise because the current system is in some way unfair - often with a built-in bias towards married couples - and opening it up to poly arrangements magnifies the existing problems. But when a large number of people have been benefiting from that unfairness for so long that they take it for granted, ending that state of affairs is a tough fight.

 

[Bramblethorn]

These same arguments were used to justify denying women the vote, on the grounds that it would overwhelm the polling system, and for denying them the right to join the military as combatants, on the grounds that separate bathrooms and showers and so on would have to be set up. Somehow, we managed to adapt.

I don't accept this parallel.

Giving women the vote, or allowing military service, is simple enough from a legislative perspective. There's already a legal model for how men are to vote or serve, and it's largely fixed by requiring that the same model is applied to women. The "we'd need new showers" argument was always specious bullshit coming from people who just didn't like the idea of women serving.

Things like tax codes, though, have a lot of built-in stuff related to marriage, and that stuff assumes that marriage is a two-person arrangement. It's not at all obvious how one extends that to poly scenarios.

And I don't see how it could be much different from Mafiosos pleading the Fifth Amendment. The only difference is that you can only invoke it to save yourself from personal jeopardy, and not the jeopardy of anybody else.

Huge difference. If I'm a godfather and you're a member of my syndicate who wants to testify against me, the Fifth can't help me. I can take the Fifth to avoid incriminating myself, but it gives me no influence over you.

But if we're married, then depending on jurisdiction, I may be able to invoke spousal privilege to prevent you testifying about all the crimes we discussed during our marriage - even if you want to talk. At least, that's my understanding of the law as it stands.

FWIW, I agree that spousal privilege is a law that's outlived its usefulness and should probably be abolished. But fixing that, and all of the myriad other laws that invoke marriage in one way or another, is a big task. In legislative terms, far more work is required than just saying "women now get to vote the same way as men".

 

[jehoram]

FWIW, I agree that spousal privilege is a law that's outlived its usefulness and should probably be abolished. But fixing that, and all of the myriad other laws that invoke marriage in one way or another, is a big task. In legislative terms, far more work is required than just saying "women now get to vote the same way as men".

I have never, never, never heard a lawyer complain that something would make more work for lawyers. They would consider it a form of guaranteed employment.

 

[pplwatching]

I have never, never, never heard a lawyer complain that something would make more work for lawyers. They would consider it a form of guaranteed employment.

I have. Of all my friends and acquaintances, those that are lawyers typically regret going into their chosen profession the most. My sample size is < 10, but the majority of them aren't looking for guaranteed employment. They're looking for work that doesn't sap the life out of them. One in particular enjoys his work, but the others are typically looking for a career change because they hate this kind of thing.

 

[jehoram]

Tax codes, survivors' benefits, etc. etc. - none of these are really designed to deal with polyamorous relationships. It'd be a significant amount of work to overhaul them to prevent them from being exploited

I'm not saying it wouldn't cause great confusion. It will. It may even be on a par with the abolition of slavery, which in slave states meant re-defining the whole concept of property, the loss of "value" when slave-owners couldn't claim slaves as property, and so on.

But somehow we muddled through.

 

[Athalia]

I don't accept this parallel.

Giving women the vote, or allowing military service, is simple enough from a legislative perspective. There's already a legal model for how men are to vote or serve, and it's largely fixed by requiring that the same model is applied to women. The "we'd need new showers" argument was always specious bullshit coming from people who just didn't like the idea of women serving.

I do agree with you on this. I was pointing out, though, that these arguments were presented in all seriousness when the subject of women voting, or women serving in the military, were first broached.

It's one of those situations, I think, illustrates the axiom. "Before, it was considered inconceivable. Now it's considered inconceivable that it was ever conceived to be inconceivable." Perhaps, as history winds its way along, that polyamorous relationships will be seen in the same light.

 

[Hipshot1554]

History is filled with ignorance and intolerance. Things do change over time but it's a slow process.

 

[CelestialCrystal_Goddess]

Monogamy can be tough for bisexuals.

I'm bisexual, I don't find it difficult, I stay faithful to the person I'm with at the time. I've always been honest with the person and most of the time they think I'll cheat, I never have. Not saying I'm perfect but I choose to be Monogamy. A lot of people want their cake and eat it too, they want both sides. Think as long as your honest with your partner and have open discussions, there shouldn't be an issue. Anytime I'm in a relationship with a person, my eyes are only on them and them alone. Being bisexual is just someone who I am, but I won't cheat on my partner or go out to sleep with someone else, if anything I will just look up photography if I feel a sudden urge. It usually works most of the time. Maybe it's rough for other people though, I try to contain my hormones and put myself in check if I am craving something else.