Thoughts on monogamy in today's world?

[Lucy_Lastic]

Just have to say cheating is very different than non-monogamy.

Totally. cheating doesn't involve consent.

 

[Handydan]

Totally. cheating doesn't involve consent.

Agreed. We have an open nonmonogamous marriage by choice and mutual agreement. We like to explore sex. We always share our adventures and love to hear about eachothers.

 

[HottieOlwen]

There's worse things than rape. But at least we can put a positive spin on it.

Lucy sweetie, I've agreed with everything you've submitted to this thread, but I have to disagree with you here. I'm a Hot Wife of very long standing (I've probably been in the lifestyle since before you were born!) and I've fucked dozens of men and women. My cuckold knows about every single one of my assignations. He's even been allowed to watch many of them! My point is this: everything I do is consensual. Rape is not. I don't want you to think I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but unless consent is present, I will not play.

 

[BiMarriedMaleforBBC]

Humans are not monogamous. Read "Sex at Dawn" excellent book. I was married two decades and was miserable. I dovorced and entered into many fulfilling relationships and had amazing sexual encounters. I let my wife sleep with black men now because it gives both of us the outlet to "play" yet maintain psychological honesty.

 

[HottieOlwen]

"Humans are not monogamous" is something of a generalisation, BiMarriedMaleforBBC. There are some couples for whom monogamy is an ideal situation. I include myself in that category. I have no intention of ever divorcing or leaving my husband, who has been my cuckold for over 30 years. My point is this. I don't cheat, and I involve him in as many of my dates and relationships that my partner is comfortable with. I am as honest with my cuckold as you are with your wife.

 

[Britva415]

"Humans are not monogamous" is something of a generalisation

Sure, of course it is, but saying "humans are not (generally) monogamous" is not saying "no humans are monogamous."

 

[HottieOlwen]

Sure, of course it is, but saying "humans are not (generally) monogamous" is not saying "no humans are monogamous."

I've searched my reply, and I can't find "(generally)" anywhere. What's your point?

 

[Britva415]

I've searched my reply, and I can't find "(generally)" anywhere

That's funny, you're the one who said it was a generalization. Which everyone else already understood, but since you said it out loud anyway:

"Humans are not monogamous" is something of a generalisation

And then acted like he was calling you nonmonogamous.

That was my point. He wasn't.

 

[Lucy_Lastic]

Lucy sweetie, I've agreed with everything you've submitted to this thread, but I have to disagree with you here. I'm a Hot Wife of very long standing (I've probably been in the lifestyle since before you were born!) and I've fucked dozens of men and women. My cuckold knows about every single one of my assignations. He's even been allowed to watch many of them! My point is this: everything I do is consensual. Rape is not. I don't want you to think I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but unless consent is present, I will not play.

I agree with you. I was being ironic as escierto with his fucked up false equivalence suggested that people who got cheated on should be grateful they're not dead instead. I was just extending the analogy to show how ridiculous he was. Consent is everything.

 

[HottieOlwen]

I agree with you. I was being ironic as escierto with his fucked up false equivalence suggested that people who got cheated on should be grateful they're not dead instead. I was just extending the analogy to show how ridiculous he was. Consent is everything.

Love your thinking, sweetie. I doubt that escierto would agree with either of us, but, hey. Fuck him. (Or not, probably. I bet he still lives with mam, has a tiny dick which he pulls off about three times a day. He's probably going prematurely bald, has a comb-over and stinks of b o. We're better off without him, hun!)

 

[Bayzapper10]

Consent is everything

I am on the pro-monogamy side, but I want to be very clear: non-monogamy is not a lesser, only that once the line is crossed the infinite branches that trail off to the different expressions become difficult to contain underneath a single heading like pro or con. As a preface to explaining what I mean, I think we can all agree that any example used should be an example of a “good” relationship, be that a good monogamous marriage or a good Hotwife-Cuckold relationship, no one should use a bad example to justify their position. I also want to limit my scope with my contribution here: I am only thinking in terms of marriage and long term committed relationships, like we are talking to young people who are just starting out and looking for insight. I don’t see how this topic would be relevant to a person who is solo-poly or a relationship anarchistic.

Monogamy is an ideal because it is the most basic of relationship structures and western society specifically is designed around couples, and further, M/F couples. Monogamy is the easiest relationship to define, the lines are clearly recognizable, child rearing the least complicated and all things legal (insurance, banking, mortgage/rent, taxes) are constrained to marriage- which is itself limited to two ( Tu-tu! ). A loving, supportive committed marriage characterized by two open and giving people with the best of communication skills, who put their faith and trust in their spouse. The beautiful and wonderful relationships we all know (hopefully) is the ideal.

Look, I know my audience here, I doubt anyone reading this is in the good, monogamous relationship I just described (although I would love to know if you are???), we have all made the choice to be somewhere on the other side of the line myself and my relationship included. I am also saying that care should be taken so opinions aren’t made with a confirmation bias. Are there good non-monogamous relationships that mirror the characteristics I described above? Of course- I am in one, I sincerely hope you are to. But the complexities and variations of non-monogamy lead me to answer the question with “it is not ideal”. That is not meant in any way as derogatory, the work and struggle it takes to move over the line is absolutely worthy of praise. I close with Lucy_Lastic’s quote: it is all about consent- which I see as something of a shorthand for having Olympic level of communication. It doesn’t matter really mono or non-mono, without good communication relationships will never be at their best.

 

[SmokingFap]

That's funny, you're the one who said it was a generalization. Which everyone else already understood, but since you said it out loud anyway:
And then acted like he was calling you nonmonogamous.

That was my point. He wasn't.

Au contraire, mon frère.

Humans are not monogamous.

That is, in fact, stating that no humans are monogamous. Which is so wrong that it's ludicrous.

 

[policywank]

I am on the pro-monogamy side, but I want to be very clear: non-monogamy is not a lesser, only that once the line is crossed the infinite branches that trail off to the different expressions become difficult to contain underneath a single heading like pro or con. As a preface to explaining what I mean, I think we can all agree that any example used should be an example of a “good” relationship, be that a good monogamous marriage or a good Hotwife-Cuckold relationship, no one should use a bad example to justify their position. I also want to limit my scope with my contribution here: I am only thinking in terms of marriage and long term committed relationships, like we are talking to young people who are just starting out and looking for insight. I don’t see how this topic would be relevant to a person who is solo-poly or a relationship anarchistic.

Monogamy is an ideal because it is the most basic of relationship structures and western society specifically is designed around couples, and further, M/F couples. Monogamy is the easiest relationship to define, the lines are clearly recognizable, child rearing the least complicated and all things legal (insurance, banking, mortgage/rent, taxes) are constrained to marriage- which is itself limited to two ( Tu-tu! ). A loving, supportive committed marriage characterized by two open and giving people with the best of communication skills, who put their faith and trust in their spouse. The beautiful and wonderful relationships we all know (hopefully) is the ideal.

Look, I know my audience here, I doubt anyone reading this is in the good, monogamous relationship I just described (although I would love to know if you are???), we have all made the choice to be somewhere on the other side of the line myself and my relationship included. I am also saying that care should be taken so opinions aren’t made with a confirmation bias. Are there good non-monogamous relationships that mirror the characteristics I described above? Of course- I am in one, I sincerely hope you are to. But the complexities and variations of non-monogamy lead me to answer the question with “it is not ideal”. That is not meant in any way as derogatory, the work and struggle it takes to move over the line is absolutely worthy of praise. I close with Lucy_Lastic’s quote: it is all about consent- which I see as something of a shorthand for having Olympic level of communication. It doesn’t matter really mono or non-mono, without good communication relationships will never be at their best.

I think that one of the more interesting questions is whether non-monogamous is more complex to manage because it is intrinsically so or because societal structures and traditions have made it so. There are examples of non-monogamous societies. But we don't really have a control group of people who existed in a society similar to ours absent the monogamy imperative. So, while we all have opinions we can't actually test them scientifically. Even the best studies tend to start with flawed assumptions or slip into confirmation bias.

Moreover while monogamous is perhaps the easiest to define it does involve trade-offs so it is difficult to conclude that it is ideal for any given couple (as opposed to a more generalized statement) without knowing how the specific couple feels about those trade-offs. Even at a generalized level, all things legal emanate from a society that built all things legal around monogamy and the traditional family unit.

None of that is intended to refute your points with which I generally agree. Just food for thought.

 

[Bayzapper10]

I think that one of the more interesting questions is whether non-monogamous is more complex to manage because it is intrinsically so or because societal structures and traditions have made it so. There are examples of non-monogamous societies. But we don't really have a control group of people who existed in a society similar to ours absent the monogamy imperative.

None of that is intended to refute your points with which I generally agree. Just food for thought.

Yes, I agree with your astute observation, empirical study would be extremely difficult without bias. And no, I did not take your comment as a refutation, but actually coming from a different perspective (scientific) and landing at a similar point. All things considered it is easier only because it is common I guess I would say.

After discovering ENM in my 40’s and doing the “deep dive” into understanding it, I can see so many relationships that would “be better” if they could have or would have the conversation about opening up sexually. Only sexually because if they could have that conversation then I am quite certain “communication” would not be on the list of relationship challenges. One of the knocks on monogamy I’ve heard from the poly side is “one person meeting all your needs forever is a lot of pressure”, certainly sexually as has been mentioned before in this thread.

Interesting thread.

 

[Britva415]

Au contraire, mon frère.

That is, in fact, stating that no humans are monogamous. Which is so wrong that it's ludicrous.

Well, that's just being super picky for no good reason.

Instead of interpeting "humans aren't monogamous" as "humans aren't all monogamous," you (and possibly[?] the person I was addressing) have chosen to interpret it as "all humans aren't monogamous."

In their case, it was an honest mistake. In your case, that's a choice, and it's a pedantic, unhelpful and irrelevant one since it would only be worth choosing if you were trying to show a certain specific flaw in my own position. I'm talking about the flaw like if I had actually asserted that the person I was addressing must be nonmonogamous, which both I and the person they were responding to very obviously weren't doing. I very obviously was conceding that some humans are monogamous while some aren't.

Me pointing out to the person I was addressing that "they weren't calling you nonmonogamous," since they (apparently innocently) didn't understand that, doesn't somehow become ludicrous just because you deliberately misunderstand it.

@HottieOlwen was already arguing against generalization. We're way past that. And I myself readily conceded that the statement "humans aren't monogamous" is a generalization. It's a generalization about humanity, not a statement about all individual humans.

For me to point out that the thing about generalizations are that they aren't always true everywhere and then for me to be be challenged with "no, you aren't talking about a generalization, you're talking about a black-and-white absolute which is wrong," that's really weak. Everyone was already saying "this doesn't mean all humans are nonmonogamous."

Until you came along and went "yuh huh it does."

Oversimplification like that is totally orthogonal to the possibility of some humans being nonmonogamous and other humans being monogamous, which is obviously the human condition and nobody's trying to say otherwise.

If some humans aren't monogamous (even while some are), then, humanity isn't monogamous (even while some humans are). If you're going to nitpick something, why not nitpick the ambiguity of saying "humans" when one means "humanity." Don't pretend you can impute meaning to "humans," because it is ambiguous.

I'm not pretending you really mean to argue that "all humans are nonmonogamous," so, have the same courtesy. Nobody at any point was saying "no individual human is monogamous." So let's just be intellectually honest with each other and recognize that. Anything else would be ludicrous.

 

[Britva415]

After discovering ENM in my 40’s and doing the “deep dive” into understanding it, I can see so many relationships that would “be better” if they could have or would have the conversation about opening up sexually. Only sexually because if they could have that conversation then I am quite certain “communication” would not be on the list of relationship challenges.

What do you mean by "only sexually?" Are you saying they should only open up sexually*? Or that that's the only thing they need to communicate about? Or do you mean something else?

Maybe we're on the same page: I think that by having the skill, motivation, commitment, empathy, and unselfconsciousness to dare to talk about sexual matters this openly, that's a couple who, yeah, probably won't have challenges around communicating about all the other things which will need it in their relationship.

* like as in sexually but not in other dimensions like emotionally or romantically

 

[SmokingFap]

Well, that's just being super picky for no good reason.

Instead of interpeting "humans aren't monogamous" as "humans aren't all monogamous," you (and possibly[?] the person I was addressing) have chosen to interpret it as "all humans aren't monogamous."

In their case, it was an honest mistake. In your case, that's a choice, and it's a pedantic, unhelpful and irrelevant one since it would only be worth choosing if you were trying to show a certain specific flaw in my own position. I'm talking about the flaw like if I had actually asserted that the person I was addressing must be nonmonogamous, which both I and the person they were responding to very obviously weren't doing. I very obviously was conceding that some humans are monogamous while some aren't.

Me pointing out to the person I was addressing that "they weren't calling you nonmonogamous" since they (apparently innocently) didn't understand that doesn't somehow become ludicrous just because you deliberately misunderstand it.

@HottieOlwen was already arguing against generalization. We're way past that. And I myself readily conceded that the statement "humans aren't monogamous" is a generalization. It's a generalization about humanity, not a statement about all individual humans.

For me to point out that the thing about generalizations are that they aren't always true everywhere and then for me to be be challenged with "no, you aren't talking about a generalization, you're talking about a black-and-white absolute which is wrong," that's really weak. Everyone was already saying "this doesn't mean all humans are nonmonogamous."

Until you came along and went "yuh huh it does."

Oversimplification like that is totally orthogonal to the possibility of some humans being nonmonogamous and other humans being monogamous, which is obviously the human condition.

If some humans aren't monogamous (even while some are), then, humanity isn't monogamous (even while some humans are). If you're going to nitpick something, why not nitpick the ambiguity of saying "humans" when one means "humanity." Don't pretend you can impute meaning to "humans," because it is ambiguous.

I'm not pretending you really mean to argue that "all humans are nonmonogamous," so, have the same courtesy. Nobody at any point was saying "no individual human is monogamous." So let's just be intellectually honest with each other and recognize that. Anything else would be ludicrous.

Words mean things. Precise words mean precise things. Just ask a lawyer or a judge. And quit trying to explain away what the post I reacted to actually said. If it was, as you presume, an honest mistake (haven't seen any evidence of that), then it was still a mistake, meaning factually wrong.

Here endeth the lesson, smarty-pants.

 

[Britva415]

Words mean things. Precise words mean precise things. Just ask a lawyer or a judge. And quit trying to explain away what the post I reacted to actually said.

You reacted to my post and I'm now completely convinced that you're deliberately saying I tried to say something I wasn't trying to say.

I am not going to pretend that you really think that words are never at least sometimes imprecise. But if you don't think that in this particular case the fact that they sometimes are is meaningful, and that "humans" couldn't possibly be taken to mean individual humans or humanity in general, then enjoy your win. I yield.

 

[SmokingFap]

You reacted to my post and I'm now completely convinced that you're deliberately saying I tried to say something I wasn't trying to say.

I am not going to pretend that you really think that words are never at least sometimes imprecise. But if you don't think that in this particular case the fact that they sometimes are is meaningful, and that "humans" couldn't possibly be taken to mean individual humans or humanity in general, then enjoy your win. I yield.

Fair enough.

 

[Bayzapper10]

What do you mean by "only sexually?" Are you saying they should only open up sexually*? Or that that's the only thing they need to communicate about? Or do you mean something else?

Maybe we're on the same page: I think that by having the skill, motivation, commitment, empathy, and unselfconsciousness to dare to talk about sexual matters this openly, that's a couple who, yeah, probably won't have challenges around communicating about all the other things which will need it in their relationship.

* like as in sexually but not in other dimensions like emotionally or romantically

Nope, you nailed it. If they could talk about opening the relationship sexually then the rest is much easier.

 

[magic_rat]

I am only thinking in terms of marriage and long term committed relationships, like we are talking to young people who are just starting out and looking for insight. I don’t see how this topic would be relevant to a person who is solo-poly or a relationship anarchistic.

I think the topic is relevant to everyone because it is the societal norm; the things your parents expect you to conform to because they did, and their parents did, ad infinitum. Nobody's relationship exisit in a vacuum. And I've found on the fetish scene that due to the internet and the wealth of information, young people are way more sorted in their thoughts, sexuality and life/relationship options than we ever were. And they're young, they get to try different things and toss them aside at will in a society that's more accepting than it was in my day.

Monogamy is an ideal because it is the most basic of relationship structures and western society specifically is designed around couples, and further, M/F couples.

Monogamy is only an ideal because it's promoted as such. If you lived in Utah, for example, polygamy is the supposed ideal.

A loving, supportive committed marriage characterized by two open and giving people with the best of communication skills, who put their faith and trust in their spouse. The beautiful and wonderful relationships we all know (hopefully) is the ideal.

I have an open and giving relationship with a woman I'm committed to. We have boundaries etc like any other couple. Difference is ours allow for fucking outside the partnership. We have a girlfriend, we play as a 3 and sometimes she plays with one or the other of us while the other is elsewhere. My partner has 3 FWB. She plays with them solo or sometimes we get together for 3somes.

If we were in a mono relationship (we define ourselves as Ethically Non Monogamous) I would have been unfaithful by now. I was married before and it's my nature. I'm not proud of it but I always want what I can't have. I think my partner would have been too, she was unfaithful in her last marriage. As individuals, mono isn't for us.

I close with Lucy_Lastic’s quote: it is all about consent- which I see as something of a shorthand for having Olympic level of communication. It doesn’t matter really mono or non-mono, without good communication relationships will never be at their best.

This I agree with. I met my partner via swinging so we knew what we were into on that level, there were no secrets. When we decided to be more than fuck buddies we agreed that 100% honesty and openness was the only way to go. She knows all my secrets (even the bad ones) and I know hers. If I'm attracted to someone, I tell her (and vice versa).

We extend that same honesty to anyone we become close with.

If monogamy suits you, all good. If poly is your thing, run with it and make life fun (we've looked at it, and decided it won't work for us, but it works fine for millions of others).

Whatever your status or orientation, be honest with yourself, your partner and those you interact closely with. And accept without reservation relationships that are different to yours, even if you don't understand them. You'll make the world a better place.

 

[magic_rat]

After discovering ENM in my 40’s and doing the “deep dive” into understanding it, I can see so many relationships that would “be better” if they could have or would have the conversation about opening up sexually. Only sexually because if they could have that conversation then I am quite certain “communication” would not be on the list of relationship challenges.

I have to agree. How many threads on here are guys who have a 'thing' but are too scared to tell their wives, or have told them and been rebuffed? They all make the mistake of raising the issue after they've neen married 20 years and they start rocking the boat.

One of the knocks on monogamy I’ve heard from the poly side is “one person meeting all your needs forever is a lot of pressure”, certainly sexually as has been mentioned before in this thread.

Interesting thread.

I'm in an ENM relationship and we're totally open and honest about all things, sexual and emotional. We both enjoy fucking others but decided poly wasn't for us but "one person meeting your needs" applies just as equally. I enjoy primal play; she doesn't. We know another couple where the lady loves to be primal (fucking like wild animals, biting, scratching etc for those not familiar) but he doesn't. He does, however, have a big cock my partner enjoys. Everyone's a winner. I occasionally enjoy sex with men. My partner enjoys watching.

For me, ENM is a no brainer. For others, mono is their dream relationship. still others will enjoy poly in its many forms. It doesn't matter. Have the relationship that makes you and your partner(s) happy. And communicate more.

 

[policywank]

Yes, I agree with your astute observation, empirical study would be extremely difficult without bias. And no, I did not take your comment as a refutation, but actually coming from a different perspective (scientific) and landing at a similar point. All things considered it is easier only because it is common I guess I would say.

After discovering ENM in my 40’s and doing the “deep dive” into understanding it, I can see so many relationships that would “be better” if they could have or would have the conversation about opening up sexually. Only sexually because if they could have that conversation then I am quite certain “communication” would not be on the list of relationship challenges. One of the knocks on monogamy I’ve heard from the poly side is “one person meeting all your needs forever is a lot of pressure”, certainly sexually as has been mentioned before in this thread.

Interesting thread.

Yes, a lot of pressure and perhaps not even possible (depending on the person). We have some rather contrived notions about sex that seem to be all about reinforcing monogamy more so than anything rational.

Desire for variety is human nature and not everyone can be good at something just by being really applying themselves. Every time I hear someone saying their spouse is not interested in sex I wonder if maybe they do have sexual desire, but just aren't interested in the sex that is available to them with their monogamous partner. Meanwhile, we tepidly acknowledge the possibility that things have gotten stale, yet steer well clear of the possibility that it was never that good in the first place.

Society tells us to subordinate sex as a criteria in choosing a partner. Yes it is relevant, but other things are supposed to matter more. And if you are really in love things will all work out and you will never want another person sexually and if things go awry communication (and maybe therapy) will put you back on the prescribed path. Except it isn't always so. Some (many) people crave variety and some people end up married to a partner who is lousy in bed or with a lesser interest in sex. It is a stretch to believe that love is blind and delusional to think that sexual desire is blind.

 

[Bayzapper10]

if things go awry communication (and maybe therapy)

Hilarious! That cracked me up even though I know you are being serious.

I do believe that Love can endure and cover over many things, I want to believe, call me a romantic. I also know many couples that would testify to your point about being dissatisfied or disappointed to the point of giving up and being content with the other “good” parts of the relationship. The resigning of their sexual selves to memory because they don’t know of any other option is self preservation.

Some (many) people crave variety and some people end up married to a partner who is lousy in bed or with a lesser interest in sex

And if you stay together long enough this will certainly happen to one or both partners and might happen again and again as bodies change, age or health issues come into play, etc. If you are in a committed monogamous relationship that doesn’t put sex at the forefront then you endure and there is a beauty in that. If your relationship is more about the sex, then your commitment to remaining in it will be more likely to shift. Not meaning that as denigrating non-monogamous relationships rather pointing to your earlier reference to human nature.

 

[policywank]

Hilarious! That cracked me up even though I know you are being serious.

I do believe that Love can endure and cover over many things, I want to believe, call me a romantic. I also know many couples that would testify to your point about being dissatisfied or disappointed to the point of giving up and being content with the other “good” parts of the relationship. The resigning of their sexual selves to memory because they don’t know of any other option is self preservation.


And if you stay together long enough this will certainly happen to one or both partners and might happen again and again as bodies change, age or health issues come into play, etc. If you are in a committed monogamous relationship that doesn’t put sex at the forefront then you endure and there is a beauty in that. If your relationship is more about the sex, then your commitment to remaining in it will be more likely to shift. Not meaning that as denigrating non-monogamous relationships rather pointing to your earlier reference to human nature.

I think that all relationships require compromise and trade-offs. In some cases monogamous marital vows refer to "forfeiting all others". By definition "forfeit" means to lose or give up, which clearly implies something that has value. So, it is accepted that not having sex with other people is one of the trade-offs of monogamy. For most couples it is worth it and there is a beauty in making that trade-off for their relationship.

But whether or not it is "worth it" is not a universal truism. It is particular to each couple and individual. And that is a function of what one has actually given up and the value that one puts on that.

Someone who has limited sexual opportunities isn't giving up much and in fact may be gaining a partner who has at least some obligation to engage with them sexually. Meanwhile sex may be more important to some people than it is to others. And some partners may be better sexual partners than others.

I think of one of those corny sitcoms where an overweight shlub marries a hot woman. In purely selfish sexual terms she gave up abundant sexual opportunities for any uninspiring sexual partner. He gave up very little in exchange for a valuable prize.

When comparing monogamy to non-monogamy I think that there is a legitimate question as to which trade-off is the right one. A partner forfeiting a fulfilling sex life is not intrinsically more valid than a partner forfeiting sexual exclusivity.