Thoughts on monogamy in today's world?

[Bayzapper10]

an overweight shlub marries a hot woman. In purely selfish sexual terms she gave up abundant sexual opportunities for any uninspiring sexual partner.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Easy there, us overweight schlubs married to a hot woman aren’t always “uninspiring sexual partner(s)” ! I would like to think that some of us can be very inspiring, I haven’t had many complaints from my bride of 24 years and we seem to only be getting better!

(Full disclosure: she and I have just recently started our second foray into ENM and no idea where we are going. We are just letting inspiration and a couple very helpful Literites (Literhovians? Literopalists? What should we call citizens of Literotica? I certainly don’t like Litercans!! ) guide us.

 

[policywank]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Easy there, us overweight schlubs married to a hot woman aren’t always “uninspiring sexual partner(s)” ! I would like to think that some of us can be very inspiring, I haven’t had many complaints from my bride of 24 years and we seem to only be getting better!

(Full disclosure: she and I have just recently started our second foray into ENM and no idea where we are going. We are just letting inspiration and a couple very helpful Literites (Literhovians? Literopalists? What should we call citizens of Literotica? I certainly don’t like Litercans!! ) guide us.

Fair enough. I was oversimplifying for illustrative purposes.

 

[Bayzapper10]

I was just having a bit of fun, trying to lighten things up a bit.

There are a number of bad and wholly inaccurate stereotypes in those shows. It is hard to reference them even for illustrative purposes when their portrayals are satirical to begin with.

 

[SteelPoint]

Can't stand monogamy. Oak is far better.

 

[policywank]

I was just having a bit of fun, trying to lighten things up a bit.

There are a number of bad and wholly inaccurate stereotypes in those shows. It is hard to reference them even for illustrative purposes when their portrayals are satirical to begin with.

Yes they are ridiculous and not illustrative of anything real. I just meant illustrative of how different people have different trade-offs depending upon their reality.

The other real life example that is sort of tangential is Tiger Woods. I'm sure you remember when he cheated on his wife. People were quick to criticize him which is fair enough. But to the extent that people took a more judgmental or "holier than thou" approach it always made me wonder how many of those people would have cheated if they had the sort of abundant sexual opportunities he had. I know that is a little off topic, but he and other celebrities are examples of people for whom the constraints of monogamy do represent a significant give up. When we see so many of their relationships fail we tend to think in terms of their flaws as humans, but I wonder if some are no more flawed than the rest of us, but just have a lot more opportunity to stray.

 

[Britva415]

I always want what I can't have

But now you can!

Does it make you want something else, since it's permitted now, or, is it still what you want?

Just asking because there are people who want what they can't have, and being given permission makes them lose interest and to want something else they still can't have.

 

[Goldenfinger]

30+ years and it’s worked out great for us.

 

[KimAwakened]

Can't stand monogamy. Oak is far better.

I pine for yesterday's world.

 

[SteelPoint]

I pine for yesterday's world.

Deal with it.

 

[Fullygrownbrat]

Love my hubs, ride or die.

But if he goes, I’m Ho’ing it up like I should have done 20 years ago.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I like how the question is phrased as today’s world somehow so different that monogamy doesn’t make sense.

Unless there’s some kind of fundamental change to how humans work, monogamy is always going to be the default. The only difference now is that non-monogamists are free to pursue non-monogamy without as much stigma.

 

[KimAwakened]

Deal with it.

Life's a beech...

 

[jehoram]

Unless there’s some kind of fundamental change to how humans work, monogamy is always going to be the default. The only difference now is that non-monogamists are free to pursue non-monogamy without as much stigma.

I beg to differ. There are many cultures over time and over the world where monogamy was not the default. It appears to have developed as a result of the importance of paternity in settling estate claims and dividing property in areas that moved primarily to an agricultural society, because it simplified those legal issues to a great extent. If a man had only one legal wife, only her kids had claims to his property, and "bastard" children were usually left out in the cold. And if a woman had multiple husbands, you could never be sure whose kid it was. That only mattered in cultures where men were the predominant (and sometimes only) possessors of inheritable property. So monogamy, I think, was the product of patriarchal societies, which gave rise to our modern western culture.

You could argue that where patriarchy is the default, monogamy will be the inevitable consequence. And in this country, where a woman is encountering push-back in her quest to become one of the world's most powerful leaders and women are denied the ability to decide what's best for their bodies, it's clear that patriarchy is alive and kicking.

But I agree that non-monogamists are free to pursue that life-style if they choose to a greater degree than they did a century ago.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I beg to differ. There are many cultures over time and over the world where monogamy was not the default. It appears to have developed as a result of the importance of paternity in settling estate claims and dividing property in areas that moved primarily to an agricultural society, because it simplified those legal issues to a great extent. If a man had only one legal wife, only her kids had claims to his property, and "bastard" children were usually left out in the cold. And if a woman had multiple husbands, you could never be sure whose kid it was. That only mattered in cultures where men were the predominant (and sometimes only) possessors of inheritable property. So monogamy, I think, was the product of patriarchal societies, which gave rise to our modern western culture.

You could argue that where patriarchy is the default, monogamy will be the inevitable consequence. And in this country, where a woman is encountering push-back in her quest to become one of the world's most powerful leaders and women are denied the ability to decide what's best for their bodies, it's clear that patriarchy is alive and kicking.

But I agree that non-monogamists are free to pursue that life-style if they choose to a greater degree than they did a century ago.

I agree with everything you’ve said, but it doesn’t actually disagree with me.

You’re kind of leaving out the part where those patriarchal societies that enforced monogamy tended to exterminate and enslave all the other ones. For better or worse (definitely worse), societies that forced their people into rigid social arrangements were far better at war and convincing ordinary people to slaughter strangers they had never met.

 

[KimAwakened]

I beg to differ. There are many cultures over time and over the world where monogamy was not the default. It appears to have developed as a result of the importance of paternity in settling estate claims and dividing property in areas that moved primarily to an agricultural society, because it simplified those legal issues to a great extent.

No. It developed as the result of monotheistic religion gaining sway and telling people how anything else was "evil". But otherwise you are right - the evolutionary default is actually polyamory where there is no such thing as 'straying' because there is no fixed 'other' to stray from. Free love.

You can see this in virtually all more primitive societies where the Judaeo-Christian clerics have not got their claws into their flocks, the better to control them and thereby raise their own status as divine intermediaries.

 

[policywank]

Societal constructs and monotheistic religions are somewhat intertwined (those religions advocate patriarchy).

There are also arguably anthropological reasons for the many constructs that exist in our society. For instance, the state of technological advancement, economic advancement and stability, social support and infrastructure, law etc. affect the type of family unit that is most suitable to survival and progenation.

Certainly our anthropological environment has changed profoundly over the centuries and continues to change. So too have our attitudes towards religion and gender equality and those changes serve to dilute the patriarchy. It is still alive and well of course. But I don't see it as an unchangeable constant.

One of the points I have often made is that I think evolutionary psychology that posits that women are intrinsically monogamous because we need a man to provide and protect misses the mark. The reason we used to need a man to provide was because the patriarchy denied us the right to provide for ourselves and banished us to the fringes of society for being unmarried (especially if we had children) where the primary threat to our existence came from men. Arguably it was the patriarchy who put those constraints in place because they wanted to compel use towards monogamy because it was in men's best interests. We see today how so many men feel left behind when it comes to relationships. That isn't because women decided en masse to reject men. It is (at least partly) because we are no longer compelled towards a one-to-one ratio and no longer have to put up with the nonsense that we did in the past.

Yes, men may have done some of this because they want to be certain of the paternity of their children. Although by the number of children who are not fathered by their mother's husband I am not sure how well it worked. But it is equally valid to assert that in the absence of the enforced one-to-one ratio lots of men would have limited relationship prospects. If you look at a society where women must marry to survive (or at least not be ostracized), you know damn well some of those women would rather go it alone than be with their husbands. So, just the chance to have a companion, have sex and build a family was reason for the patriarchy to compel monogamy. There is no evidence to suggest that men would have been less jealous, possessive and misogynistic if there had been some way to verify paternity. And now that there is there is no evidence that their attitudes have changed.

I expect that monogamy will remain the default for sometime. And even if the patriarchy and religion fade as influences there are still anthropological reasons for that to continue. But lots of the reasons monogamy is currently the default are changing so I wouldn't't be so sure it will always be the default.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Societal constructs and monotheistic religions are somewhat intertwined (those religions advocate patriarchy).

There are also arguably anthropological reasons for the many constructs that exist in our society. For instance, the state of technological advancement, economic advancement and stability, social support and infrastructure, law etc. affect the type of family unit that is most suitable to survival and progenation.

Certainly our anthropological environment has changed profoundly over the centuries and continues to change. So too have our attitudes towards religion and gender equality and those changes serve to dilute the patriarchy. It is still alive and well of course. But I don't see it as an unchangeable constant.

One of the points I have often made is that I think evolutionary psychology that posits that women are intrinsically monogamous because we need a man to provide and protect misses the mark. The reason we used to need a man to provide was because the patriarchy denied us the right to provide for ourselves and banished us to the fringes of society for being unmarried (especially if we had children) where the primary threat to our existence came from men. Arguably it was the patriarchy who put those constraints in place because they wanted to compel use towards monogamy because it was in men's best interests. We see today how so many men feel left behind when it comes to relationships. That isn't because women decided en masse to reject men. It is (at least partly) because we are no longer compelled towards a one-to-one ratio and no longer have to put up with the nonsense that we did in the past.

Yes, men may have done some of this because they want to be certain of the paternity of their children. Although by the number of children who are not fathered by their mother's husband I am not sure how well it worked. But it is equally valid to assert that in the absence of the enforced one-to-one ratio lots of men would have limited relationship prospects. If you look at a society where women must marry to survive (or at least not be ostracized), you know damn well some of those women would rather go it alone than be with their husbands. So, just the chance to have a companion, have sex and build a family was reason for the patriarchy to compel monogamy. There is no evidence to suggest that men would have been less jealous, possessive and misogynistic if there had been some way to verify paternity. And now that there is there is no evidence that their attitudes have changed.

I expect that monogamy will remain the default for sometime. And even if the patriarchy and religion fade as influences there are still anthropological reasons for that to continue. But lots of the reasons monogamy is currently the default are changing so I wouldn't't be so sure it will always be the default.

I wish I shared your level of optimism about the general direction of society. However, I expect patriarchy to endure so long as power can be acquired by violence or sociopathic levels of aggression.

 

[ericalauren]

Serial monogamy has always confused me.

 

[Britva415]

There are also arguably anthropological reasons for the many constructs that exist in our society

I can't think of a reason which wouldn't be anthropological

 

[magic_rat]

the evolutionary default is actually polyamory where there is no such thing as 'straying' because there is no fixed 'other' to stray from. Free love.

I don't think there is an 'evolutionary default' and it's wrong to frame things that way. People use the argument to support whatever cause they're pushing. 'Monogamy is the natural order' or polyamory is the natural progression' or 'we're genetically programmed to swing'; fuck all that.

Respect and trust are the cornerstones of relationships. Pin that down first. If you want to devote your love and attention to one other person for the rest of your life, be free to do that. Don't judge those that choose otherwise. If you want to share your love with additional partners, do what works. Don't look down on those that don't. Poly isn't a superior form or relationship, it's just different. If you want to swing, or have an open relationship, or whatever floats your relationship boat, do it. Don't judge or be judged. Enjoy life. We only get one.

 

[KimAwakened]

I don't think there is an 'evolutionary default' and it's wrong to frame things that way. People use the argument to support whatever cause they're pushing. 'Monogamy is the natural order' or polyamory is the natural progression' or 'we're genetically programmed to swing'; fuck all that.

Respect and trust are the cornerstones of relationships. Pin that down first. If you want to devote your love and attention to one other person for the rest of your life, be free to do that. Don't judge those that choose otherwise. If you want to share your love with additional partners, do what works. Don't look down on those that don't. Poly isn't a superior form or relationship, it's just different. If you want to swing, or have an open relationship, or whatever floats your relationship boat, do it. Don't judge or be judged. Enjoy life. We only get one.

And "fuck all that" encapsulates the spirit of judging the views of others very nicely indeed...

I'm "pushing no cause" and I "judged" no-one. I merely pointed to what science in general and anthropology specifically has uncovered with regard to the pre-institutional religion basis of human sexuality... and it isn't one man-one woman...

I'm enjoying life, never fear.

 

[SPARTAN047]

Really stupid idea today because no one wants or cares enough to be faithful. You're better off cheating.

If you don't have the self control to be bored then it won't work out for you anyway. Just bide your time and control your options, it's easier to have someone mad at you for not committing instead of giving ownership of your property to the government.

Do private ceremonies if you must feel the need to announce your monogamy - but make sure you and your lover actually feel that way.

 

[magic_rat]

I merely pointed to what science in general and anthropology specifically has uncovered with regard to the pre-institutional religion basis of human sexuality... and it isn't one man-one woman...

Some people like and enjoy monogamy. Are they 'going against evolution'?

Anthropology is fine but that was then, this is now. We are free to make choices based on what works for us as individuals (and couples, thruples, polycules, etc) not on how things were then thousand years ago. Back then choices between mono and poly groupings were as far as we can tell regional and depended on what arrangement worked best for the survival of the tribe, not on choice.

If 'anthropology' decided after some extra research that the human default was that menand women only got together once a month in a darkened room and only to produce babies, would we all decide we had to conform to that?

 

[KimAwakened]

Some people like and enjoy monogamy. Are they 'going against evolution'?

Anthropology is fine but that was then, this is now. We are free to make choices based on what works for us as individuals (and couples, thruples, polycules, etc) not on how things were then thousand years ago. Back then choices between mono and poly groupings were as far as we can tell regional and depended on what arrangement worked best for the survival of the tribe, not on choice.

If 'anthropology' decided after some extra research that the human default was that menand women only got together once a month in a darkened room and only to produce babies, would we all decide we had to conform to that?

No, this is still very much "then".

We are still governed by the impulses and drives that have formed us over, literally, millions of years of human history. The tiny portion represented by our societal "civilised era" is almost negligible by comparison. So yes, not to put too fine a point on it, monogamy is going against evolution. It's in good company though. So are legal systems. So are codes of ethics.

Hence the crime rate. Hence the divorce rate. Hence the illegitimacy rate. Our ancient drives are still with us - in spades.

Well aware as I am of the tendency of certain less intellectual sections of the population to engage in conspiracy theories, to decry any news they don't like as "fake" and despise science (despite quite happily enjoying the benefits of it), even so I think that there is a general acceptance among scientists that we are still very much the product of evolution - the human animal and not, actually, the instantaneous. magic product of some fairy in the sky.

 

[policywank]

Obviously evolution means change. We change in response to our environment. But it is true that what we consider the civilized era is a tiny blip in time. Barely enough time for any real change in our innate beings.

Moreover if we have evolved to be monogamous why has it needed to be strictly enforced until relatively recently? And why as the enforcement of it has waned has our behaviour changed so quickly?

Reality is that for much of the civilized age monogamy was a practice that has been imposed upon us and enforced through a variety of measures. Even today being non-monogamous will invite judgment and opprobrium from some people. Yes there are/were reasons why it worked well for society. But if it is so natural why did it need to be effectively enforced?

We have no control group of people who lived in our modern society but who were free from the imposition of monogamy too know how we would have behaved if it wasn't imposed upon us.

To be clear I am not claiming that non-monogamy is natural. I am just saying that to claim monogamy is natural because we observe its prevalence without considering the manner in which it has been imposed upon us is flawed.