Thoughts on monogamy in today's world?

[Bramblethorn]

This seems to be a viable topic that I've seen mentioned in passing on a few threads. I wanted to open a discussion and see what opinions you all may have.

I have come to believe it is something that came about through necessity. Given the divorce rate is now above 75%, is the idea of having one mate for life still the ideal goal?

Nowhere near. For the USA it's somewhere around 40-50%.

 

[SimonDoom]

Given the divorce rate is now above 75%, is the idea of having one mate for life still the ideal goal?

The only meaningful way to pose this question is to append the question "For whom?" to it.

Monogamy may not be the best answer for some people, and societies probably ought to adapt to that reality and be more understanding of it than they have been in the past.

I'm divorced, but my ideal would be to be in a relationship with one woman for the rest of my life. So, I'm not giving up on monogamy just yet.

 

[Hipshot1554]

I had heard that statistic before. I just re-checked and the statistics are confusing. The number does seem to be closer to 50%, but there are so many factors that are used in determining the percentage.

First marriages, couples married more than once, and the number of divorces per 1000 people in the US. I've always felt that statistics are fluid, and can often prove either side of an argument.

 

[policywank]

Theory

I have a theory, or maybe more of an opinion.

The enforcement or imposition of monogamy as the only acceptable relationship model was designed principally to benefit men.

Certain arguments of evolutionary psychology hold that historically women were naturally monogamous because we needed protection and a provider. But it was mainly men that we needed protection from and it was a patriarchal society that denied us the latitude to earn for ourselves - partly by excluding us from the workforce and partly by refusing to help with the kids. Monogamy was the price of marriage and marriage was necessary for women because of the constraints imposed by a patriarchal society that explicitly sought to control women and female sexuality. An unwed woman much less an unwed mother was an outcast. We were compelled to submit to the prevailing version of monogamy and marriage the same way a shop keeper is compelled to submit to the local protection racket - because all options have been shut off.

Why? Male status has often been linked to their real or perceived success with women. Many men wouldn't have much of a chance at marriage and a regular partner in their bed if they couldn't enforce a 1 to 1 ratio. For much of history men sought to possess a woman and render her meek and mild to serve their own ends - religion is but one reason for this, but what men wanted was not reflective of our true nature so we had to be compelled to comply.

Now I do genuinely believe that monogamy is the right thing for lots of people. I just don't think it is automatically the "right" or "correct" way. And I think that when we look at its role in human history we have to see it with open eyes.

The inclination toward sexual variety is natural for both genders. Whether forfeiting the option to seek other partners is a suitable compromise in a loving relationship is a matter for each person to decide. I think that is difficult for both partners to come to an honest view of that until they can release all the imposed expectations and simplified assumptions.

 

[jehoram]

I agree with what policywank said. I might also add that for most of Western history and in most Western cultures, women were pretty much seen as property. The family raised the women until they were of marriage age, whereupon they were sold to men for a suitable price. The only restriction on how many women a man could buy was his own wealth. Polyandry was unheard of. Polygyny was widespread. Even up to the Middle Ages, it was common for men to take mistresses with very few social repercussions. And right up to the last century right here in America, a women had no legal guarantee that she could vote, open a bank account, make a major purchase, or run a business without her spouse's permission.

So we are truly in an incubation period for a new society, based on the ideal of gender equality. It remains to be seen how successful that society is. I suspect that monogamy will fade as an ideal, and that polyamory will replace it, with children being raised in larger family units than just a husband and a wife.

 

[Jamie_and_Lisa]

I suspect that monogamy will fade as an ideal, and that polyamory will replace it, with children being raised in larger family units than just a husband and a wife.

We hope so. The seven of us raised ten children that way, there were always enough "moms" and or "dads" to go around, and everyone was quite happy. All of those ten are grown now and most have formed polyamorous families as well.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

i lean this way, biologically speaking. I'm not sure true monogamy is a viable option. heres a question: how many species are known to mate with only one other being?

Almost non-existent in reptiles and fish, as I recall. Maybe 10% for mammals, but a very great majority for birds. Of course, many of those practise social monogamy, equating to the human serial monogamy discussed above.

The writer Greg Clark did a short story on a pair of geese he saw up north one fall. The female had broken a wing and couldn't fly. The male, even though the rest had long since left and even though all but a small portion of the lake had frozen, had stayed and Clark had no doubt he would stay until they were both dead.

 

[jehoram]

Almost non-existent in reptiles and fish, as I recall. Maybe 10% for mammals, but a very great majority for birds. Of course, many of those practise social monogamy, equating to the human serial monogamy discussed above.

Although if you look at our closest relatives among the great apes, it's possible for two apes to pair-bond, but it doesn't equate to anything we'd call monogamy. They're just close friends and occasional fuckmates.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Almost non-existent in reptiles and fish, as I recall. Maybe 10% for mammals, but a very great majority for birds. Of course, many of those practise social monogamy, equating to the human serial monogamy discussed above.

The writer Greg Clark did a short story on a pair of geese he saw up north one fall. The female had broken a wing and couldn't fly. The male, even though the rest had long since left and even though all but a small portion of the lake had frozen, had stayed and Clark had no doubt he would stay until they were both dead.

By my understanding, DNA analysis has indicated that a lot of species are less monogamous than we thought - a pair might stay together for life, but the kids aren't always his.

That said... I'm polyamorous, have been for most of my life, but I get deeply skeptical when people start trying to rationalise polyamory with arguments about what other species do. We are not other species,. We're a highly unusual animal and we can do all sorts of things that other creatures can't, even our closest relatives among the primates.

IMHO better to just own it and say "I want to sleep with more than one person, and here's how I do that ethically and responsibly" rather than "I just gotta do it, because bonobos".

 

[Son1]

When it comes to my wonderful Mom, Maureen, I do not believe in monogamy. I think my mom should go out and enjoy all different people and cocks and sex. If I had my way, I would help my mom discover this whole new sexual world.

 

[Fingerfuxs]

When it comes to my wonderful Mom, Maureen, I do not believe in monogamy. I think my mom should go out and enjoy all different people and cocks and sex. If I had my way, I would help my mom discover this whole new sexual world.

Your mom's ugly kid, fuck off

 

[pplwatching]

.....

 

[Jamie_and_Lisa]

By my understanding, DNA analysis has indicated that a lot of species are less monogamous than we thought - a pair might stay together for life, but the kids aren't always his.

We see two things here. A story about lazy grad students who basically say "yep black bird, white yellow and red wingtip, same bird as last year." And an LW story about a cockolding finch in an birdwatching Incels mother's yard. A burn that bitch bird story except he uses a tad too many sticks of dynamite. Dude dies in the destruction of the tree and discovers that heaven is a bi-sexual orgy led by Saint Peter...

(Why is the guy in heaven? Simple, Satan sent him to voyeur as a punishment, to eternally watch and not participate. Oh, and that saying about if God hadn't wanted you to play with it he could have made your arms shorter. Guess what else Satan did...)

That said... I'm polyamorous, have been for most of my life, but I get deeply skeptical when people start trying to rationalise polyamory with arguments about what other species do. We are not other species,. We're a highly unusual animal and we can do all sorts of things that other creatures can't, even our closest relatives among the primates.

IMHO better to just own it and say "I want to sleep with more than one person, and here's how I do that ethically and responsibly" rather than "I just gotta do it, because bonobos".

While this is a valid stance to take we made a conscious choice. Growing up we saw good strong interpersonal relationships disintegrate when human sexual needs and desires entered the fray. Why not make your friends your lovers? Mothers love multiple children equally. Couldn't we love more than one lover to the same degree? Why limit sexual love to one? We already accepted the Paulist principal that we act as God's conduits to our lovers. That we provide the gift of sex when our partner desires it. Our recent ancestors had been polygynous, why not be egalitarian and polygamous?

It would be funny were it not tragic. English culture and its offshoots are so sexually repressed. We are very sexual, but in censoring the normal deeds and desires of people the only place we -- in the universal sense -- can discuss these topics is a place with this tiny little forum off on the corner of a sea of readers who seem offended by anything other than hard fast play-by-play.

 

[Bramblethorn]

While this is a valid stance to take we made a conscious choice. Growing up we saw good strong interpersonal relationships disintegrate when human sexual needs and desires entered the fray. Why not make your friends your lovers? Mothers love multiple children equally. Couldn't we love more than one lover to the same degree? Why limit sexual love to one? We already accepted the Paulist principal that we act as God's conduits to our lovers. That we provide the gift of sex when our partner desires it. Our recent ancestors had been polygynous, why not be egalitarian and polygamous?

FWIW, it's a conscious choice for me too. I'm an atheist but apart from that aspect, I'm in agreement with a lot of this, although my implementation of poly looks a bit different to yours.

I know some polyamorous people who experience it as a hardwired orientation - they would find it against their nature to be monogamous. Me, I think I could've been happy enough in a monogamous relationship with the right person, if we'd chosen to go that way, but my partner and I chose differently. (Though we've been de facto monogamous for the last few years, because other relationships broke up and we haven't worked particularly hard to find new ones - and 2020 isn't the best of times for meeting new people.)

I don't think loving another person detracts from the love I feel for my partner, but there are only so many hours in the day and sometimes polyam requires making choices about how to dedicate those hours.

 

[policywank]

I agree with what policywank said. I might also add that for most of Western history and in most Western cultures, women were pretty much seen as property. The family raised the women until they were of marriage age, whereupon they were sold to men for a suitable price. The only restriction on how many women a man could buy was his own wealth. Polyandry was unheard of. Polygyny was widespread. Even up to the Middle Ages, it was common for men to take mistresses with very few social repercussions. And right up to the last century right here in America, a women had no legal guarantee that she could vote, open a bank account, make a major purchase, or run a business without her spouse's permission.

So we are truly in an incubation period for a new society, based on the ideal of gender equality. It remains to be seen how successful that society is. I suspect that monogamy will fade as an ideal, and that polyamory will replace it, with children being raised in larger family units than just a husband and a wife.

The historical data is indeed skewed. Using it to draw conclusions about female sexuality is like inferring the innate behavioural characteristics of any sentient being by observing only those held in captivity. Some will quibble with the semantics of 'captivity'. Women weren't literally locked up (well not most of the time anyway). But being denied the means to survive or ensure our offspring survive if we didn't obey is pretty close to the same thing. It is just a matter of method and degrees. The point is that we were not free to be ourselves sexually or otherwise.

The rules of society and relationships were established by men for men. I have no idea if women would have done a better job and any suggestion that we would have is spurious. But any suggestion that we are where we are because it served the needs or innate characteristics of women is laughable. All of the elements of traditional society are driven by male needs and preferences. Why would relationships be different?

I'd like to think that we are in an incubation period of a new way of thinking. I think that a portion of liberal society is starting to explore new ideas. We are a few decades in to the first tentative steps. But for women the shackles haven't been fully removed. We need to move past redefining female sexuality to not trying to define it at all....accept each woman as she is.

The same applies to men. They still face stigmas and expectations. But with due respect that is often with reference to the women in their lives. A man with the latitude to take a mistress (or twelve) is a hero among men. A man who prefers men is now accepted. A man whose wife takes lovers is deemed less of a man. The manner in which our husbands are judged by our actions is one of the most potent tools that society wields to control women. There will be no freedom of choice for anyone as long as a man is judged by his woman's obedience to tradition.

 

[policywank]

We hope so. The seven of us raised ten children that way, there were always enough "moms" and or "dads" to go around, and everyone was quite happy. All of those ten are grown now and most have formed polyamorous families as well.

I hope that everyone finds a path to making the decisions that suit them....and provides a path for the next generation to follow their own path.

It sounds like you've had a different experience than mine. I often wonder why when sexual dynamics enter the fray things go awry. Is the result inevitable or is it the by-product of our conditioning as to how we are expected to interpret those events?

 

[policywank]

Almost non-existent in reptiles and fish, as I recall. Maybe 10% for mammals, but a very great majority for birds. Of course, many of those practise social monogamy, equating to the human serial monogamy discussed above.

The writer Greg Clark did a short story on a pair of geese he saw up north one fall. The female had broken a wing and couldn't fly. The male, even though the rest had long since left and even though all but a small portion of the lake had frozen, had stayed and Clark had no doubt he would stay until they were both dead.

I love those stories of devotion. I always hope that I would display such commitment to staying with a friend or spouse. But with respect it doesn't have anything to do with sexual exclusivity. For all we know the male goose told the flock he was going to stay back with the injured female goose and all the female geese fucked his brains out for his sacrifice before they left (with their male goose partners' consent).

 

[Jamie_and_Lisa]

I hope that everyone finds a path to making the decisions that suit them....and provides a path for the next generation to follow their own path.

It sounds like you've had a different experience than mine. I often wonder why when sexual dynamics enter the fray things go awry. Is the result inevitable or is it the by-product of our conditioning as to how we are expected to interpret those events?

We were friends for a decade before we were overtly sexual. Society did not see childhood as something that should endure forever, it was a -- pleasant -- training period for adulthood. We were fully expected to grow up. Our parents were too busy to micro manage us, but we were told to let everybody play and to not play favorites. We learned to differentiate our needs and our desires and communicate the same to our playmates.

We played a polygamous version of house as kids before we formed a polyamorous household as adults. We played games where the girls got tied up and rescued as children before we played games where the girls got tied up as adults. We learned to trust one another and we saw how trust was betrayed and lacking outside our group.

Socety said that when the time came we should look outside our little group and pair up. But the late 60's weren't a time of high trust in society's pronouncements. We looked around and didn't like what we saw and decided to try a different way. We added sex to a stable group of friends rather than try to build a stable relationship on top of a sexual attraction.

Our first rule is that we never say no. If a lover asks for sex we give it. We are literally there for one another. (It's not an original idea. When Paul was imprisoned by Rome he wrote on this topic to the Philippians.) How can one be jealous of his brother or sister's portion if they have plenty themselves. We banished individual greed and jealousy.

In another reply you wrote about society being set up to benefit men. Without wishing to get into a big debate we see society very much as a pyramid. The pinaccle nearly always being held by a male and the few females like Livia and Elizabeth who ruled did so as an acceptable compromise in a stalemate between political forces. While the rulers were male, Kings, nobles, and other truly autonomous people were what? Maybe 1% of the males?

Most of the other 99.5% of the population were the drones, workers, soldiers. There were a few alates inverting the gender but mirroring the social structure of the ant colony. In the aggregate men had more choices that is certain, but for most individuals it wasn't that much. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers had only a very few more opportunities than our grandmothers and great grandmothers. As we often say the "unit of measure" was not the individual. Society had strict rules and expectations for all.

Growing up there were males George and Paul's age who laughed at them for playing house with "a bunch of girls" and for compromising with us and playing one game of horse, one game of pirate and one girl game we chose in rotation rather than, "standing up and being men, and not playing with girls." But let's see, conservatively speaking and averaging one sex act per day for 50 years (365.25x50=18,262.5) Who is laughing at whom today?

 

[jehoram]

The rules of society and relationships were established by men for men. I have no idea if women would have done a better job and any suggestion that we would have is spurious. But any suggestion that we are where we are because it served the needs or innate characteristics of women is laughable. All of the elements of traditional society are driven by male needs and preferences. Why would relationships be different?

And why did this system come into being? I think it was all about inheritance. When property was passed down in the Judeo-Christian culture, it was through the male line. So when there was one man but any number of women in a marriage, there was no doubt about who the father was. But with two or more men, there would be considerable doubt. (That's assuming the women were faithful, of course.) In cultures without that rigid rule about inheritance through the male line, as in some Native American societies, it didn't make a difference who the father was. And those were the cultures that had occasional polyandry.

I'd like to think that we are in an incubation period of a new way of thinking. I think that a portion of liberal society is starting to explore new ideas. We are a few decades in to the first tentative steps. But for women the shackles haven't been fully removed. We need to move past redefining female sexuality to not trying to define it at all....accept each woman as she is.

I think that was the point I was trying to make a few posts ago. And those shackles have to go, along with all the "male privilege" attitudes we've fostered over the years. I think that male sexuality has to be re-assessed as well. Each man is is who he is. If he wants to be monogamous, fine. If he doesn't, that's fine, too, as long as he takes responsibility for any hard feelings he might cause to the other people he has relationships with, and for any children he might engender. (And now, with DNA tests, that can't be ducked very easily.)

 

[Jamie_and_Lisa]

And why did this system come into being? I think it was all about inheritance. When property was passed down in the Judeo-Christian culture, it was through the male line. So when there was one man but any number of women in a marriage, there was no doubt about who the father was. But with two or more men, there would be considerable doubt. (That's assuming the women were faithful, of course.) In cultures without that rigid rule about inheritance through the male line, as in some Native American societies, it didn't make a difference who the father was. And those were the cultures that had occasional polyandry.

I think that was the point I was trying to make a few posts ago. And those shackles have to go, along with all the "male privilege" attitudes we've fostered over the years. I think that male sexuality has to be re-assessed as well. Each man is is who he is. If he wants to be monogamous, fine. If he doesn't, that's fine, too, as long as he takes responsibility for any hard feelings he might cause to the other people he has relationships with, and for any children he might engender. (And now, with DNA tests, that can't be ducked very easily.)

There is a Polynesian Island we don't recall the name of. In this culture property is inherited through the father. It is REQUIRED that males marry any unmarried aunt on his father's side first, then a cousin on his father's side and a non-relative only if no marrigable kin from his fathers side are available. Marrige to an aunt or first-cousin on the mothers side is taboo and forbidden.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

OK, I get it.

Monogamy is neither as common as it once was, nor is it perfect. There are people here whose life experience is well outside of monogamy. Good for them, sincerely.

That said...

Monogamy remains the single most common relationship model, by a long, long shot. It is what most - not all, but most - people seem to want (adolescent fantasies notwithstanding).

The were in 2019 2,126,126 formal marriages in the USA. It is hard to believe that any of those four-and-a-half million people went to all that trouble with the expectation of divorce. Ergo, all of them got married in the perhaps unrealistic but definitely sincere expectation and hope that theirs would be a lifelong relationship. That adultery occurs cannot be denied, but it remains outside the covenant, not part of the original deal and not part of the monogamous model. And a high divorce rate doesn’t change that, either.

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.

Women’s magazines sell millions of copies with articles on ‘how to get him to notice you’ and ‘how to tell if your man is cheating’ and ‘how to get him to pop the question ’. Yes, the sexy, strong, self-sufficient female image is emphasized, but so is the one-boy-and-one-girl relationship. Compare that to the number of articles, let alone publications, aimed at swinging or polyamory. There’s a reason for that imbalance.

Times are definitely changing, but I think it’s far too early to write off monogamy just yet.

As to monogamy being a male conspiracy by whatever term, it’s true what women were the underdogs in most places for as long as anybody can deduce. Yet women too benefitted from marriage. In most societies, it protected a woman from being discarded like yesterday’s newspaper if she got sick, old or proved infertile. In times with no social security net, that was a supremely important thing. There were no other ways of securing one’s old age except through having children. Most children died in infancy; as late as 1850, four out of every ten children in the USA died before they hit five years old. (Abraham and Mary Lincoln had four sons. One died of TB at four years old, another of illness at 18 and a third died at 11 of a typhoid fever (bad water) while living in the White House! Only one of the four reached adulthood.) Lots of kids were needed if you were to be looked after in your old age. Men weren’t capable of nursing babies and bottles were rare; while it’s good things have changed, it’s not entirely surprising that the traditional male-breadwinner-female-housewife split developed. Yes, women had a hard time of it, but it wasn’t entirely one-way.

 

[Hipshot1554]

Would you still call it monogamy where two people stayed married but one or both went outside the limits?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Would you still call it monogamy where two people stayed married but one or both went outside the limits?

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

 

[Fingerfuxs]

Just a observation and slight thread highjack should anyone read this post.

What about lit site thread monogamy ?

Do you stay true to just certain threads or peek in on those wink wink other sections of the site and post there too?

 

[jehoram]

OK, I get it.


Monogamy remains the single most common relationship model, by a long, long shot. It is what most - not all, but most - people seem to want (adolescent fantasies notwithstanding).

Agreed. But that is largely because it's been hardwired into our laws, cultures, and traditions, not because it's part of our genome.

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.

I'm wondering about that. If the question was simply "are you in a relationship of commitment," that assumes that the commitment is only to one person. It probably is, in most cases, due to social expectations, but I know of several instances where the two people were "committed" to each other but at least one of them had a relationship with a third individual.

And what does "commitment" mean? For the short run? For the long run? For life? My current wife and I lived together for five years before we got married. And we got married only because it removed certain legal impediments to the relationship, such as making medical decisions for each other.

Men weren’t capable of nursing babies and bottles were rare; while it’s good things have changed, it’s not entirely surprising that the traditional male-breadwinner-female-housewife split developed. Yes, women had a hard time of it, but it wasn’t entirely one-way.

That's not an argument for monogamy. If you have several wives, they could help raise each other's children.

It's true that, in some cultures, legal marriage provided some protection for women, such as alimony and child support. But in other cultures, it wasn't an issue, because the larger group (the tribe or clan) would be expected to take up the burden of providing for the women and children.