Is monogamy realistic anymore?

[Lucia Amman]

Monogamy and brain size:

 

 

[lukeb]

Monogamy has been around forever and will be around forever, biological fact of life.

 

Monogamy has of course not been around forever, monogamy is the exception not the rule historically. Marriages even have generally been polygamous in many cultures with rich and powerful men having many wives and the poorer men simply being out of luck. Through a great deal of social, religious and other cultural pressures there has been some limited success enforcing something that doesn't come naturally to most of us.

 

In the sort run, the first few years for many it may be do able, but I would say marriages would have a bigger chance of success in the long run, if couples were more open to accepting that people's needs change as they enter new phases in their lives. You may be in a relationship where it is the case that monogamy works for you but again I would say you would be the exception rather than the rule. Especially now a days when many of the cultural and religious pressures aren't in place anymore. It doesn't look like monogamy is necessarily all that realistic for you based on your past, and feeling guilty about it doesn't necessarily make things better.

[Wiseman2]

That may be motivation for some, but not everyone. In fact, those restraints would make it more difficult.

cultural and religious pressures

[Hermes]

DEfinitely hasn't been around forever.

 

Monogamy's spread in the West had something to do with the influence of Christianity, but not as much as you might expect. Mainstream Christianity has always endorsed and enforced monogamy, and as Christianity spread across Europe in the centuries following the fall of Rome, monogamy spread along with it. However, Christianity's condemnation of polygyny has never been as straightforward as anti-polygyny church leaders would have preferred, because no Biblical passages explicitly prohibit plural marriage. Indeed, leaders of breakaway Christian polygynous sects, like 16th-century German Anabaptists and 19th-century American Mormons, have always been eager to point out that several central Old Testament figures are polygynists. Abraham, for instance, had two wives simultaneously, and Solomon had 700 (plus 300 concubines).

 

From:

 

 

[Frangipani]

Monogamy is a very Western ideal was originally connected to a religious marriage, so it doesn't work for everyone. Many non-Christian cultures practice polygamy and can't understand why people would only have one partner in Western society. Monogamy is a 'custom' in ours.

 

Scientifically speaking I don't think it's natural for humans to be monogamous. Biologically male brains are hard-wired to fertilise as many eggs as possible. Thats not a criticism it's just a scientific fact. Male humans can still produce children until they die and women cannot - there is a reason for that. Even the animals that were thought to only 'partner for life' have now been shown to sneak off from their life partner and mate with others to mix up the gene pool. Different for humans I know as being with more than one person is generally about pleasure and not genetics.

 

I like a partner to be monogamous while they are with me, but I have had quite a few long term relationships and am glad I have experienced different people. Monogamy needs to be discussed pretty early on but to be honest, no one knows what the future holds for ANY couple. For me monogamy is really important for health reasons too. Cheating is just putting your partners sexual health at risk.

[Hermes]

Well put, Frangipani.

 

The facts are the facts. The subjective view of monogamy is another matter. Yes, monogamy is a custom. It is usually used in the context of marriage, as in people in "western" culture may only marry one wife (husband).

[Lucia Amman]

I'm not comfortable claiming that humans monogamy is not natural - I just read a book that claimed roughly 50% of us are by our nature monogamous and 50% of us just aren't. This isn't to proof (by the author) a point on how hunter-gatherers or any ancient human society was monogamous or polyamorist. We actually simple don't know how or when we turned monogamous. This is an article that reflects more of how I think humans are naturally.

 

 

From the article:

"Both men and women tended to split into two groups: one made up of people who valued faithfulness, and another with people seeking flings. Slightly more than half of the men could be classified as having the promiscuous orientation, compared with just under half of the women."

 

And this article claims some other interesting point: monogamy made us human

 

Either way dismissing monogamous as simply not natural it feels like saying homosexuality is not natural. Obviously we know better now about homosexuality as actually being something wired in our brains and not a simple 'preference' that can be changed. Why wouldn't our sex/romantic/love interest be of the same sort of wiring in our brain? Why wouldn't our monogamous or polyamorist nature be defined in our brains or DNA? Even if monogamy comes natural to a minority of people, it still doesn't mean it wouldn't be our nature - just that it's a small group who's nature it is doesn't mean we can force them to change their wants and needs.

 

Sure I believe that most of us has been taught to love differently and that in itself is a HUGE problem. I think most of the marital and infidelity problems comes from pushing people towards a monogamous relationship while it is certainly not ideal or in the nature for 50 or more (or less) percent of us humans. That is a problem. And I hope one day none of us has to face this problem and we would be all more accepting of the different ways people like to live their romantic life.

[Itchy]

I think comparing monogamy to homosexuality is far fetched. For starters we know that homosexuality has always existed. From what I have read in the past in ancient Rome and ancient Greece, it was very common for soldiers to engage in homosexual sexual activities with each others in the public baths while the women were at home raising the children. Women in those societies were seen as child bearers for the next generation of soldiers, sex with women was done out of necessity, it was sex with men that was the sex of pleasure. I can't remember the ancient Greek army in question but homosexual relationships were actively encouraged because it was believed that if two lovers were on the battlefield side by side in battle they would protect each other and fight out of love and this would enable a higher level of performance.

 

Monogamy didn't seem to be the normality prior to the 12th century from what I have read. It wouldn't surprise me if what I was read was true and that was monogamy was born out of necessity. The necessity to stop the spread of diseases and infections. You only have to look at how most people live their lives, many people spend their youth sleeping around before "settling down" and getting married and having children and the latter part seems to be born out of societal pressure and dictatorial attitudes. It's funny since the break down of religion in the West and since divorce no longer carries the same stigma it used to that an increasing number of people are not getting married or are divorcing and marrying multiple times. That in itself shows that the social construct of monogamy just doesn't work for a lot of people and I suspect it goes against human nature.

[Hermes]

Absolutely correct, Itchy.

 

There is no comparison between homosexuality and monogamy. The latter is a social (relatively modern) construct, or if you like an arrangement that was introduced somewhere along the way.

 

But of course people can choose to be monogamous, or not. No one said otherwise.

[IAmFCA]

I am more comfortable in a monogamous relationship.

 

It also is easy for me to imagine an arrangement like "what I don't know won't matter." It's just not what I want.

 

I'm not sure there is a bigger issue to discuss. As I wrote eat in this thread, monogamy might be difficult, andany of us end up cheating during a low moment.

 

Monogamy may be difficult to maintain, but that doesn'take it irrelevant. Going to the gym regularly is difficult too, but many of us still try.

 

Monogamy obviously isn't biologically impossible, as it is practiced by many.

 

There are many ways to make ourselves happy, full of self respect, satisfied by our achievements and visions. Monogamy is one of those ways.

[lukeb]

Absolutely correct, Itchy.

 

There is no comparison between homosexuality and monogamy. The latter is a social (relatively modern) construct, or if you like an arrangement that was introduced somewhere along the way.

 

But of course people can choose to be monogamous, or not. No one said otherwise.

 

Lucia Amman didn't say they were the same, she compared them, there is a difference. People choose to be monogamous perhaps, but gay people also choose to have gay sex. Or another way of putting it people choose to be monogamous even though it is not natural for them. People choose to do all kinds of things regardless of who they are sexually.

[lukeb]

The institution of marriage apparently gained traction from the 12th century to the 16th century due to the sheer numbers of people becoming sick and infected, doctors at the time attributed this to polygamy and marriage was seen as a means to control the spread of illnesses and infections.

 

I think that is only partially true, a bigger factor is property ownership. Marriage was a way to keep the family business in tact in a orderly way from generation to generation. Women benefited as much from this as men did.

[cupcake22]

Monogamy is totally alive and well, I promise you.

 

I can't help but to think that this statement people make is one-sided.

[Seraphim]

Why though? There are many people totally happy with it. I am happy with it and I know many others happy with it. Saying there's nothing good about it and it's false to human nature can be seen as one-sided too.

[IAmFCA]

Lucia Amman didn't say they were the same, she compared them, there is a difference. People choose to be monogamous perhaps, but gay people also choose to have gay sex. Or another way of putting it people choose to be monogamous even though it is not natural for them. People choose to do all kinds of things regardless of who they are sexually.

 

If my entire self were defined by my desire for sexual pleasure, your argument would be relevant.

 

Humans have different brains and different awareness than other mammals. Human sexuality involves these other dimensions for humans, leading to the great variety of the human sexual experience.

 

Therefore, there is not one assertion that applies to all humans, rather, an appreciation for the rich diversity of how we choose to conduct ourselves is in order.

[itsallgrand]

To be honest, I find it offensive ( though I'm confident it's not meant to be) that some posters here are cherry picking specific cultures to make a point that polygamy is more natural and ancient to human kind than monogamy. There are many old cultures that have traditions of monogamous unions going back further than written histories for those people. If anything, history shows diversity of arrangements - even in societies where polygamy is the norm.

 

I don't see why in order to acknowledge one way of doing things, some folks trivialize the other.

[lukeb]

If my entire self were defined by my desire for sexual pleasure, your argument would be relevant.

 

I never said or implied our entire selves were defined by sexual pleasure, just pointed out there is a difference between choosing to do things and who we are sexually which is basically the same thing as you are saying. The more unrealistic our life's choices are the more unlikely we will be successful in making those life's choices, but I never said we are completely defined by our nature.

[Fudgie]

The more unrealistic our life's choices are the more unlikely we will be successful in making those life's choices

 

I agree with this and I also think that "unrealistic" is subjective. It's unrealistic for me to be in a polygamous set up. It would make me unhappy. Polygamous setups usually center around child rearing. I don't like the idea of having to take care of babies/kids and getting a tiny part of my husband's time, in addition to having to deal with the other wives. I've seen "Sister Wives" and I'm sorry, but I know I'd be absolutely miserable in that setup.

 

On the other hand, I believe that monogamy IS unrealistic for many people, men and women included. If someone really values and enjoys sleeping around with multiple people, then yeah, monogamy isn't for them and I don't think they should attempt it. For them, it's unrealistic.

 

That said, I don't believe that's everyone. Not everyone is very sex-driven. I know that I am not and neither is my boyfriend or my past boyfriends. I like it but has never been a "driving" force for me. I'm much more focused on having fun with someone at hobbies/events, emotional connection, etc.

 

People need to be HONEST with themselves and what their needs are. It may or may not be monogamy. And that's okay. But I think society needs to embrace other lifestyles more because I think those that would be better suited for those lifestyles will gravitate toward them and that's only a GOOD thing. They will be happier.

[Hermes]

When all is said and done it is a question of choice IMO. Nothing wrong with wanting to be, for example, in a monogamous marriage/partnership. Equally nothing wrong in not wanting to be monogamous.

 

If someone wants monogamy, then go for it. If not, that's all right too.

 

It isn't even a question of whether "monogamy is realistic any more".

[TMifune]

I think the heart of Seymore's question isn't "does monogamy work for some people"

 

It's more along the lines of how does one find a good, committed, monogamous partner when it appears to be harder and harder to find people who value those things, based on the evidence of their behavior.

[Batya33]

I think the heart of Seymore's question isn't "does monogamy work for some people"

 

It's more along the lines of how does one find a good, committed, monogamous partner when it appears to be harder and harder to find people who value those things, based on the evidence of their behavior.

 

"Appears" is the operative word and I think when people choose to focus on social media the "appears" seems more like reality. Having said that I am surprised to be surprised that on Sunday and again on Tuesday I met two men who had the same situation: professional/educated/reasonably attractive/fit men in their 40s, fathers to twins 5 and under, married 7-9 years and the wives in each case wanted the divorce. In one case, they've been separated for a month, she moved out. I know the kids in that case - good kids, etc. Obviously I have no clue what "their side" is (I met one of the wives a few times, barely remember her) but I was surprised at these types of situations given the relatively short marriage, young twins involved, etc.

[Fudgie]

I think the heart of Seymore's question isn't "does monogamy work for some people"

 

It's more along the lines of how does one find a good, committed, monogamous partner when it appears to be harder and harder to find people who value those things, based on the evidence of their behavior.

 

You have to be ruthless when it comes to cutting off people. Someone who has been involved with a married man/woman? Cut them out. Someone who has been a cheater in the past? Cut them out. Someone who likes to party a lot? Cut. Flirty personality? Cut.

 

The issue that I see a lot is that people choose who is REALLY flirty and charming and thinks that they will be a good long term, monogamous partner. Hint: they probably won't be. Or someone who chooses someone with an iffy past, or someone who likes to party, etc. Again, people sometimes choose to not listen to when someone tells them who they are. People usually tell you who they are. It's up to you to listen. You can't get so attached in the beginning that you are't willing to walk away as soon as you see red (or even yellow) flags that may point to someone who may be incompatible with monogamy.

[Batya33]

"people sometimes choose to not listen to when someone tells them who they are. People usually tell you who they are. It's up to you to listen."

 

Yup. To follow up on that I always loved when Dr. Joy Browne said that a person likely will tell you who they are in the first minutes of meeting if you are willing to listen (big if).

 

I do think the "like to party" is relative to age and depends on what kind of partying etc. Same with being flirtatious. Now, if he takes you to a fancy ice cream place and orders plain vanilla (unless the vanilla is stupendous), long term prospects are dim at best.

[Hermes]

Wise words, Fudgie:

" Again, people sometimes choose to not listen to when someone tells them who they are. People usually tell you who they are. It's up to you to listen. You can't get so attached in the beginning that you are't willing to walk away as soon as you see red (or even yellow) flags that may point to someone who may be incompatible with monogamy."

[IAmFCA]

I never said or implied our entire selves were defined by sexual pleasure, just pointed out there is a difference between choosing to do things and who we are sexually which is basically the same thing as you are saying. The more unrealistic our life's choices are the more unlikely we will be successful in making those life's choices, but I never said we are completely defined by our nature.

 

Or another way of putting it people choose to be monogamous even though it is not natural for them. People choose to do all kinds of things regardless of who they are sexually.

 

Would you agree that a person could feel that monogamy is natural for them, AND also have a high sex drive?