Robert Levithan explains why monogamy might not be for everyone.
Monogamy remains the societal ideal for relationships. Those who choose other forms are pathologized as immature, irresponsible—even defective.
When my relationship with my Brazilian boyfriend was floundering, I stopped and asked myself an important question, “What is the best relationship I can have with this man?” What if I throw out the frame for an “ideal” relationship and strive for one that reflects our actual selves and needs. We were not meant to be monogamous; we weren’t meant to live together. We were meant to be friends for life—friends with benefits in that case. I applied this formula to my more recent five-year relationship. We were truly committed lovers. We never pretended exclusivity; we always told the truth and acted with respect.
A recent piece on Dan Savage in The New York Times Magazine, where he questioned monogamy as the only viable model, was a big deal. It crossed over into the “straight” world with an issue, which is always up for discussion amongst gay men. Suddenly my (happily) long-married female friends were talking about the importance of commitment and continuity as primary values, monogamy as secondary—both for couples but also for the family unit.
I know men, straight and gay, who are monogamous by nature. I believe they are the minority. It is a cliché, but males are programmed to spread their seed. It’s natural to want to get it around. The chemicals released during sex make the male want to linger with the female last for an hour or two. The same chemicals released in females last for days, often bringing on the urge to make a nest for the child that might have just been conceived. Our free will, and variances in personality, psyche, chemistry, and environment, creates a spectrum of possibilities for the modern man and woman, but nature significantly influences most of us.
♦◊♦
Monogamy as deprivation rarely works: “I will give up what I want in order to have you (and society’s blessing).” Monogamy is valuable as a choice: Opt to be with only one partner in order to explore the depths of that relationship. Every relationship form has its inherent challenges and concomitant rewards. Each of us needs to look at what we are up to and ready for. What matters is commitment—to self, partner, the relationship, the lessons.
A healthy relationship has three members: Two I’s and a We. They all need attention and nurturance. For some, monogamy may be necessary to nurture a fragile We. For others, it might starve one or more of the I’s.
Ultimately, what matters for a couple (and for the family unit, if they have children) is trust, continuity and integrity. The first definition of integrity in the dictionary is wholeness. What makes us whole? What makes our marriage whole? What makes our family whole? These are questions for which there are so many answers.
Each of us is responsible for identifying our deal breakers. Monogamy can be one, which is fine, as long as it isn’t a cop out—an unwillingness to look at what we need, value, and truly hold dear. My honest open relationships have resulted in ongoing intimate friendships with my lovers. Success was in not playing by someone else’s rules.
—Photo derekGavey/Flickr
Wow, I really dislike it when zealots hijack a comment thread to argue back and forth about things of which they will never convince each other. And by zealots I mean believers, skeptics and non-believers alike – all three can be guilty of overzealously defending their positions. Can’t we all just get along? I just wanted to thank the author for this line: “A healthy relationship has three members: Two I’s and a We.” I want to tape that to my bathroom mirror. I have no bad feelings towards non-monogamy or those who practice it. I don’t personally feel I’m… Read more »
What I see people saying in support of monogamy is that it’s common to be in a relationship and still be attracted to other people. You have free will, you don’t have to follow through on those feelings. You don’t have to give power to those natural feelings. I totally agree with all that. But then why can’t we say the same thing about jealousy? Jealousy is a common human feeling in many relationships. You have free will, you don’t have to be ruled by jealousy. You don’t have to succumb to feelings of jealousy but can rise above them.… Read more »
I don’t think either jealousy or lust is just a petty brain chemical. I would agree with you that you can make a choice, do you want to try to get over your jealousy or your lust. Some people decide that they would rather try to get over their jealousy and they have open relationships. I think for most people, restricting your sex life is a better choice. You get to have sex with someone you love anyhow. The sex outside the relationship may take effort to get, may not be that great, and brings some drama and risks along… Read more »
I think for most people having sex outside the romantic relationship puts a strain on the relationship that can lead to the couple breaking up. So sexual monogamy is an usually an important part of making it possible to stay with one person and develop the deeper bond. Just as we are not made to want sex with only one person, we are also made to be jealous. We don’t want our partners to sleep with other people or be romantic with them. If they do, it hurts us. If we do it, we hurt them. At some point you… Read more »
If you have to be in an open relationship (or any relationship) to be “whole”, then in my opinion you have issues to resolve. You should be a “whole” person all by yourself. Then, when you get into a relationship, you don’t have to depend on your partner or anyone else to be “whole”, which is something no one but yourself is responsible for anyway.
And there is the real issue to me. Personal responsibility. Seems to me that a lot of people just don’t want to be responsible for their own behavior and happiness.
Agreed. If you can’t be whole all by yourself, then I can guarantee you being in a relationship won’t complete you.
Agreed. Same with a monogamous relationship as well. If you can’t be whole without sexual exclusiveness, then the monogamous relationship won’t complete you.
Do you think that if you can be whole without exclusiveness, the relationship will complete you?
I’m not sure how to put this. My husband doesn’t complete me. I would be less without him, I need him, he’s like a part of me, but we’re still different people. Nothing is going to change that.
There is a traditionalist,a new age, a moderate and a peacekeeper in this conversation. There is no answer to fit all of you. Each situation is completely unique and private. There is also no debate as to what definition of monogamy,commitment,marriage,security. This too is personal and subjective to each of your lives. Hopefully, you are all with men worth the debate, as relationships are an investment, and cost precious hours away from focus of other goals. Get counseling if your partner is in conflict w/ values. If partner won’t go, take a break until agreement. Communication person-to-person is most important.… Read more »
I’m assuming you think I’m the new age person. Since we’re doing labels now…I’m a queer, agnostic, social-democrat, polyamorous sexual feminist slut. I’m too rational and non-woo-woo to be new age.
I am a woman who has had a “complicated” relationship for the past 8 years. The only way I can be “whole” as a person and as a partner to him is to be in an open relationship. As long as both partners set the parameters together, there is really no reason this should be considered wrong, in my opinion. Thanks for the article. Lola
If your relationship is complicated, then perhaps you shouldn’t be in one at all, open or not.
So what you’re saying is, “If you can’t have a relationship in the way I think you should have a relationship (whatever that is), you shouldn’t have a relationship at all.”
Do I have that right?
A bit, ummm, presumptious maybe, but hey, who am I to tell you Amber, how to live your life. Right?
Valerie, Monogamy is a fine choice if it makes you happy. It does prohibit you from having loving, long-term relationships with people you care about but do not want to marry. Which is fine if that’s what you want. Don’t have sex with a man if he doesn’t wear a condom. Period. If a man argues with me on the condom rule, I put my clothes back on and walk away. It’s actually quite easy. You just have to learn to value yourself as much as if not more than you value men. Your argument of how wonderful monogamy is… Read more »
I think the condom issue is that if you’re in an open relationship with a man, you have to have a huge level of trust that he is going to wear a condom with other women. If he doesn’t it can kill you.
Don’t have sex with men who don’t wear condoms. Honestly, I don’t know why this is so difficult for women to understand. I have never had a problem with this. I walk out on the men who balk at wearing a condom or respecting any of my boundaries. Yes, they get upset but I don’t care.
But what if the other woman doesn’t walk out on him? Just because a guy knows he needs to use a condom with you doesn’t guarantee that he will always use one with other people.
Monogamy doesn’t stop you from having long-term relationships with people you don’t want to marry. They’re called friends.
Monogamy isn’t a cop out. It’s a nice way of not spreading diseases. Condoms only work if the man wears them, many do not because they like sexual risk taking and the feeling is better without them.
Also, monogamy is great way for a man to know exactly how many children he has and to prevent incest.
There’s a lot more advantages to monogamy than just emotional bonds.
“It’s a nice way of not spreading diseases.”
True, but kind of a low bar to set for a sexually exclusive relationship. After all, there are a variety of sexual activities that have no chance of spreading diseases.(Thanks, internet!) Is it monogamy just as long as I don’t physically touch anyone else?
Jeni- in my life I have seen one person who is truly poly, and the other poly relationships fall down like a stack of cards. Monogamy might not be stable, but with poly, you exponentially expand your problems each time you take on another partner (and their problems). I’ve also experienced insidious and spiteful competition from poly folk. The women in one “commune” essentially compete-fucked for the man’s money. There is also the devastating “Domino Effect” with poly You have more than one partner/lover, you lose one, the rest can go too. Even your entire social circle. I speak from… Read more »
And I’m sick of this “what’s natural” talk and it being used to excuse one side or the other. What level of monogamy feels natural for one man, might not for another man. What level of monogamy feels alright for one woman will not feel alright for the next woman. How much you’re willing to compromise is also up to the individual. There might be certain trends, but in the end, it varies from person to person. The problem arises when one partner is more prone to monogamy than the other, which is bound to happen in most relationships. That’s… Read more »
Tracey, I completely agree with you. It’s a little odd that when someone chooses to forgive and stay with a partner who’s cheated, they’re pitied and seen as weak or just plain stupid. (I don’t know if this happens to women more or both sexes equally.) There’s so much more to commitment than just monogamy. It takes a strong person to work through that horrible betrayal and humiliation and try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sometimes it’s not worth it to keep the relationship, but it’s often worth it to at least try and see.
This is something I have wanted to write about for awhile but was too chicken. So bravo to you for taking it on. I do not think the quality of a relationship or the its health is always based on monogamy. In this country we place far too much value on it and I think many families and decent relationships have ended based on some sex outside the marital bed. Often times sexual attraction wears thin while bonds, love and companionship grow. For some there is no question it’s a deal breaker and the one thing they hang their union… Read more »
There is a little something to be said for self control. And that’s really what is culturally disappearing. We take pride in our committment to our families (children), to our work, to our pet projects and our homes. But funny that when it comes to human interaction, we find ways to justify half-assed ways to sustain a relationship with minimal effort and call it “commitment”. You should know yourself well enough to know what you are capable of. If you don’t want a monogmous relationship and you are okay with your partner sleeping with other people, have at it. All… Read more »
Erin, If we were living in a tribal, hunter-gather environment as we were for a good portion of human history before the advent of agriculture, a woman would not need to marry or pair-bond with a particular man to ensure the survival of her children. The children would be protected and raised by everyone in the tribe. This concept of women needing to pair-bond with men so that the babies would survive didn’t occur until the advent of agriculture and patriarchy where women were considered property. Now, I will agree with you to a certain extent. If I were into… Read more »
I don’t live in a tribal environment so I can’t say what would or wouldn’t help my off spring survive in such a place. I however have a deeper desire for a good, healthy, intimate relationship with a man that goes beyond supporting children. My point in talking about children previously was to point out the fact that both monogamy and polygamy both have their biological places and that it comes down to your choice. That monogamy isn’t unnatural since we have chemicals and hormones that sustain one-on-one partnership. And it rubs me the wrong way when people misguidedly try… Read more »
Erin, I’m afraid this is another one of those instances where we are going to have to agree to disagree. The chemicals and hormones you mention as supporting monogamy actually just support connection and bonding between humans. There is no limit on the number. If that were the case we would be able to love our children, our parents, our friends, etc. Furthermore, the science has shown that any chemicals involved in folks falling in love with each other usually fade after about four years. The divorce rate has shown that the oxytocin a married person gets from sleeping and… Read more »
Jeni, I’m going to jump in really quick and defend my religion here. Marriage in Christianity does not treat women as property. You might be thinking of the Old Testament. Throw that thinking out. The New Testament overrules the Old Testament in a plethora of ways, including ideas about marriage. I know better than to try to convince you of much more than that over the Internet, so I’ll just use one scripture qoute: Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” In other words, though Paul does believe that… Read more »
The Bible in it’s entirety is the infallible word of God for Christians. If the Old Testament weren’t pertinent it wouldn’t be included. The fact that God contradicts himself is something Christians have to reconcile for themselves. It’s not my business. Much luck to you though!
How would you react if someone said the fact that atheists are mostly upper-class white men who think they’re superior to the rest of the world is something you have to reconcile for yourself?
Don’t tell Christians what they believe and they won’t tell you what atheists believe.
In any case, religious peoples always have ways to evaluate the truth value of their sacred texts. They aren’t as unsophisticated as you think. In general, Christ’s words replace the Old Testament as he came later.
Whatever. In my opinion, Christianity, along with most any organized religion, has a lot to answer for.
Also, Christianity has historically been very patriarchal and used the Bible to justify it along with every other abuse it has committed.
I’m not an atheist. I don’t really give a shit what they believe or do not. For the most part though, they have committed fewer atrocities in the name of their lack of religion than Christians have.
Religion has also been one of the sources of real social change in our world – things like getting rid of slavery and the civil rights movement. Christianity has also included many groups who were for equality for women. When you look at history, most of the bad things people did were done for reasons like money, power, and racial hatred. Blaming religion is lazy. Ironically, the most awful violence in recent history was done in the name of “science” and nationalism. The only official atheist states we’ve had did indeed commit atrocities – think Stalin, Pol Pot, and the… Read more »
There is no one single Christianity. I agree that no one should tell Christians what they believe, but that also includes Christians themselves! There have been so many versions of Christianity, so many versions of the writings called “The Bible” (as if there were only one), that it is really difficult to say all Christians believe X, Y, and Z. Choose any idea that people call Christian today, including views of sex and marriage, and you will find disagreement within Christianity across history and across the world. The global Christian community does not even agree on what year it is.… Read more »
So why believe in it? It seems more like a human creation than a God creation to me and an irrelevant (or irrational) excuse for making life choices.
Why not believe in it? What’s wrong with following something that’s a human creation? Do you know a rational basis for morality?
Before you criticize people for believing something, be sure you can explain why you believe what you do.
Jesus himself told his followers that his word did not invalidate the Old Testament. At least, this is what he was reported to say by the people that wrote down his teachings decades after the fact.
Jen, your science is off. There are bonding chemicals related to sex and sexual relationships, not just groups of people. Specifically, bonding chemicals are released during orgasm. Science has NOT shown that the chemicals that make us fall in love fade after four years. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. Fisher thought at one point that love was doomed after four years. She based this theory on pretty weak evidence – in developed societies there is a peak in the divorce rate after four years. That could just be when people who are mismatched give up on trying to… Read more »
There’s nothing rational about religion.
That’s a silly generalization based on not knowing much about religion. For thousands of years, religious scholars have had rational debates. You don’t agree with their premises, but that doesn’t mean they don’t use logic and reason.
In any case, the argument the poster made above was about values related to sex. It was logically consistent. It didn’t even need religion – a person who is not religious could also believe that sex belongs in a relationship, etc.
The two hormones involved in attachment are vasopressin and oxytocin. Both are considered “cuddle” hormones. Oxytocin, in particular, is known to contribute to bonding between mother and infant. It’s levels increase any time multiple get together and cuddle, naked or not. As people become more “attached” there is less desire for each other. To quote Helen Fisher, “…romantic love did not evolve to help us maintain a stable, enduring partnership. It evolved for different purposes: to drive ancestral men and women to prefer, choose, and remain sexually faithful to “him” or “her” long enough to conceive a child.” Personally, I… Read more »
I would add that pair-bonding and monogamy are not exactly the same thing. They may be related, but just because you feel close to someone does not mean that you cannot feel close to someone else. Just because there are chemicals that make you feel bonded to someone does not mean those chemicals prevent you from feeling bonded to someone else. I’m don’t think there’s such a thing as an “exclusion hormone,” something that kicks in when you’ve found someone and makes you not attracted to anyone else. That would demonstrate some sort of hormonal tendency towards monogamy. It’s very… Read more »
Wellokaythen, I abhor the idea of a soulmate and I think it’s one of the biggest threats to successful monogamy. I don’t think bonding in humans programs us with hormones to love one and only one person all our lives. I think it just promotes pair bonding and I don’t think the pair bonds are designed to run out after four years. I think part of pair bonding for most humans is jealousy. We don’t want our partner to be as close with someone else. That is how exclusiveness starts, not with us magically never wanting anyone else. Some of… Read more »
Jeni, you’re right that oxytocin helps people bond and that it plays an important role in mother-child bonding. Oxytocin is also released when people, men and women, orgasm. In studies of prairie voles, oxytocin and vasopressin play a role in promoting monogamous pair bonding. So sex can promote bonding with someone at a chemical level. I think Fisher was completely wrong in her theory that pair bonds aren’t designed to last more than four years. She looked at a bunch of modern developed societies (the data you cite) and found that divorce rates were highest around the fourth year of… Read more »
Jeni, your description of a tribal society where women had sex with whoever they wanted seems unlikely to me. 1. In terms of pair-bonding, scientists believe that the relative size of male and female humans suggests that humans are mostly monogamous with occasional polygamy (i.e. some powerful men had more wives). They argue about whether or not our pre-human ancestors (the extinct one after the apes) were also monogamous based on relative sizes of males and female skeletons. Monogamy probably evolved a very long time ago for our species. 2. If you look at existing societies studied by anthropologists, they… Read more »
Black Iris, here’s my response: 1) The scientists who believe that the minimal difference in size between males and females are not taking all the evidence into account. Our two closest relatives, the chimp and the bonobo, also have this trait regarding size differentials between males and females but they are highly promiscuous. Primate species that have less of a multimale-multifemale mating system have a bigger size differential between males and females (see Sex at Dawn). Furthermore, the shape and size of the penis as well as the repeated thrusting men do as part of copulation are both designed to… Read more »
Black Iris, here’s my response: 1) The scientists who believe that the minimal difference in size between males and females are not taking all the evidence into account. Our two closest relatives, the chimp and the bonobo, also have this trait regarding size differentials between males and females but they are highly promiscuous. Primate species that have less of a multimale-multifemale mating system have a bigger size differential between males and females (see Sex at Dawn). Furthermore, the shape and size of the penis as well as the repeated thrusting men do as part of copulation are both designed to… Read more »
1. There is a difference between showing that human females do indeed cheat sometimes and saying that humans are “a promiscuous species designed to have multiple partners at the same time.” Humans lie, kill, and steal, but we don’t say we were designed to do those things. Furthermore, although monogamous birds sometimes cheat on each other, they are not considered to be promiscuous species like chimpanzees. They’re still monogamously pair bonding, just not perfectly faithful. As you acknowledge, evolutionary psychologists don’t agree on the meaning of the anatomical data we have on humans. Many (I think maybe most) see the… Read more »
2. We don’t have any recorded societies that look like chimp societies. This is probably a good thing since they are male dominated and look like they would be unpleasant to live in. Patriarchy unfortunately seems to have existed before agriculture and male chimps and gorillas rule. Hunter gatherer societies also practice monogamy and polygamy. The life of a !Kung woman does not sound great. Males are bigger than females and without civilization that’s what counts. The thing is, whatever the size of human testicles might suggest about monogamy or promiscuity, you have to look at what humans actually do.… Read more »
3. I agreed with you until you got to the last bit. “The fact that people do “cheat” combined with the evolutionary evidence indicates that monogamy (especially sexual monogamy) is a social construct and is NOT generally natural for human beings.” The fact that people cheat doesn’t prove that monogamy isn’t natural (if they’ve promised to be faithful, it is cheating, no quote marks). It proves that we aren’t programmed to be good. Keep in mind, that most people don’t cheat. I think you have to look at the other side of it all. Humans also get jealous of their… Read more »
Many, perhaps most, Christians believe in evolution. It is the official position of the Catholic Church that it’s not a contradiction to believe in it.
In any case, I see this as a debate about evolution. Sociobiologists/evolutionary psychologists do not all agree on this question.
Exactly. It’s silly to think monogamous men are rare. It seems like it’s a 50/50 thing–50 percent monogamous, 50 percent polygamous–in line with the divorce rate. Monogamy is just as natural as polygamy. What is natural to you may be unnatural to someone else. Polygamy would be completely unnatural for me, but I have no problem what-so-ever sustaining a monogamous relationship with my significant other. I have no urge to go out and have relationships with other men. I may find other men attractive, but in no way do I desire to have sexual relationships with any of those men.
Amber, When you say “it seems like it’s a 50/50 thing–50 percent monogamous, 50 percent polygamous–in line with the divorce rate” do you mean that you think that divorces happen because 50% of men are not monogamous? Please explain the logic of this reasoning. There are many reasons why divorces happen. Most have nothing to do with whether or not the men involved cheated on their wives…or that women cheated on their husbands. In her book, “Why We Love”, Helen Fisher claims that humans the world over tend to pair bond for only about four years. That’s long enough to… Read more »
As I said above, Fisher was wrong about people pair bonding for only four years. She has since published research saying this. I’m sorry you haven’t seen any happy monogamous relationships that lasted, but they do. Most marriages can be expected to last a lifetime (60%). Most – about 80% of people manage to be monogamous. There isn’t a lot of evidence about open relationships, but the one study out there found a 75% divorce rate – higher than for monogamous relationships. It may be that the couples had trouble and therefore opened their relationships, but it is clear that… Read more »
Please cite your evidence.
Also, if 50% of marriages end in divorce how can 60% last a lifetime? I am confused. Also, none of the studies I have seen show that the termination rate of non-monogamous relationships are less than than monogamous ones.
Nobody I know would recommend dealing with a troubled closed relationship by opening it.
All I am saying is that monogamy isn’t natural and I have yet to see it work in the long-term.
Previous studies found that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Now demographers are projecting that for couples who married in the 1990s and on, the lifetime divorce rate will only be 40%. I have only seen one study of couples in the 1970s with open marriages. The data said they had a 75% divorce rate which is higher than the divorce rate in general for that time. I’m not sure of the source, but I think it was talked about in a book on Love Triangles. I haven’t been able to find a more specific citation, although I would be… Read more »
In line with talking about good men – the best studies seem to show that most men are faithful – nearly 80%!
For me, sexual fidelity is not a factor in assessing the goodness of a man. I think there are other, better measures of what makes a good man.
If you’ve agreed to have an open relationship, it’s different. Otherwise, being faithful is a sign of honesty and keeping promises.
I would definitely give any man who is faithful credit for being a good man.
Please clarify, does commitment = monogamy?
It seems to me that commitment could be whole lot more than monogamy (say like making an effort to be a productive member of a couple) whereas monogamy means having sex with no one else.
I always find that confusing as it seems to me that one can be (not will be, but CAN be) very committed but not monogamous.
Or am I wrong and committed = monogamous even if you do absolutely nothing productive in the couple except only have sex with your partner?
Please clarify. Thanks!
To me yes, monogamy does equal commitment. I could not be in a safe place with a man where I could make myself truly vunerable to him if he didn’t feel the same way. Commitment should also be whole lot more then just monogamy too. You commit to a lot of things through out the day. You promise to be at work at a certain time. You promise to do your work. You promise to pick up your kids and so on. There are many facets of what commitment means. I don’t personally believe that someone can be very (fully)… Read more »
I don’t think commitment requires monogamy. There are many cultures where people are fully 100% committed to staying in a polygamous relationship. In fact, I think it might be harder for a woman in a polygamous marriage to leave her husband as he wouldn’t be able to give her any child support. On the other hand, I don’t think you can commit as much to a group of people as you can to one person. In a socially monogamous relationship, you get to sleep with your partner every night and you don’t have to argue about the budget with five… Read more »
Well said. Thanks.
The boxes confuse me, so I just wanted to clarify that I really liked Erin’s comment on monogamy and its value for her.
I believe that it takes a very high level of consciousness to be able to effectively navigate the inevitable jealousies and insecurities that come with a poly-amorous relationship. Most people do not have neither the communication skill nor maturity to deal with it. I know a lot of friends who are miserable in both poly-amorous and monogamous relationships. Who is to say what is right or wrong, if it is working and both partners are truly honest where they are at, then no one gets hurt. However, I have found that with most poly-amorous relationships, someone does in fact get… Read more »
Playful unavailability? What is that? Is that like not having sex with your partner for 20 years? Or is 1 year? Maybe 1 month? I can understand during the late stages of pregnancy or some such, but… Playful unavailability? That sounds like being dressed in sexy lingerie all day and saying “Not until the sun goes down” (from the woman’s end anyways, I don’t know what it looks like from the guy’s end). Anything else (maybe not anything, but getting there) seems like it would be not very nice and start the road towards the 20 year sexless marriage. Could… Read more »
I don’t know if “playful unavailability” is exactly the right term, but a lot of sexual teasing and flirting plays with the idea that “I have something you want, how/when are you going to get it from me?” I think maintaining flirtatiousness in a relationship is a great way to keep up the sexual heat and tension. Women seem to want this more than men, though, in my experience. Once men achieve the desired result (a regular sexual relationship) they stop being flirtatious and just want to get busy. When women complain that the romance is gone, I think what… Read more »
Monogamy seems to be losing it’s popularity and more and more people are being open to other types of relationships. That will likely mean couples won’t want to bear or raise children because that does not support their lifestyle of choosing who to run around with, and indulge their sexual fantasies to, essentially living a hedonist life.
Gay and lesbian couples can adopt an open relationship more easily because most do not want children, which gives them no strings attached.
Whoa! You’re making a lot of assumptions there Michelle! First off, most polyamorous people don’t have sex with strangers. They have relationships with multiple people. Yes, the children get to know all their parents’ various partners. No, they’re not confused. In fact, it becomes rather like an extended family where the children know they are loved and cared for by many different people. Second, most people I know in the open relationship world are sex-positive but VERY careful about what they expose their children to. They have clear boundaries about what is and is not acceptable for their children to… Read more »
I said “choosing who to run around with”…if you choose to run around with multiple partners and deem them “relationships”, all the more power to you. There’s no assumption there, you just said that’s what you are doing. Open relationships are mostly for selfish people (especially ones with kids) who should stay single, never marry or have kids. Before getting serious with a partner, people should ask each other whether they can truly stay in a monogamous relationship and how each feel about open relationships, that way nobody shocked down the road. I know I would be a diehard monogamous… Read more »
Please clarify, does commitment = monogamy?
It seems to me that commitment could be whole lot more than monogamy (say like making an effort to be a productive member of a couple) whereas monogamy means having sex with no one else.
I always find that confusing as it seems to me that one can be (not will be, but CAN be) very committed but not monogamous.
Or am I wrong and committed = monogamous even if you do absolutely nothing productive in the couple except only have sex with your partner?
Please clarify. Thanks!
No commitment does not have to equal monogamy.
Yes, when you say your marriage vows you are making a commitment to be in a monogamous relationship with your partner/spouse til death do you part. The priest always asks the guests if anyone would object to that – and if you’re one of those who want an open relationship, then that is your chance to stand up and raise hell; let them know you want a piece of that groom’s ass too on their honeymoon. Heck, keep standing up and look at everyone in the place, smile and shout out “you’re all invited to my apartment for a spectacular,… Read more »
I thought that when the priest asks about objections it is more about the couple’s suitability for each other, whether or not one of them is already married, etc. Given the divorce rate, I’d say very few people take their vows seriously. A lot of people write their own vows. I certainly did when I got married many, many moons ago.
I’ve often thought it would be great if newly married couples would host orgies instead of receptions. It would be a lot more fun and make the ceremony/ritual aspect of it a lot less of a farce.
There is no proof that children growing up in polyamorous or open-relationship families are any worse off that children growing up in monogamous families. The children grow up knowing they can choose whatever lifestyle they want and that regardless of that lifestyle they can raise happy, healthy kids.
I don’t think there are any studies of kids who grew up with parents in open relationships.
The big issue for me is that I don’t think open relationships stay together as well as monogamous ones. That’s saying a lot in a society with a high divorce rate, but I think it’s true. So I think it decreases the chance that the kid will have a stable family situation and we know that kids benefits from parents who stay together.
Please cite your evidence. I have seen evidence indicating otherwise.
What are the studies you’ve seen?
I feel that if you bring children into the picture, then it should be a monogamous relationship, any other type will betray the family unit and betray the children’s trust and confuse them. They need a mother and father, what they don’t need is to know why strangers are going into daddy’s bedroom while mom is away or why mom is home alone and daddy leaves in the middle of the night all dressed up or smell like alcohol the next morning.
Just ’cause you’re going out for a shag doesn’t mean you have to drink.
Just sayin’! 🙂
Also, according to what you’re saying, mom and dad should be sure to keep themselves attractive to each other and put out on a regular basis for the benefit of the children.
Good advice. Rarely promoted in my experience, but good advice all the same.
I think there is a tradeoff either way, whether one is monogamous or not. Each has benefits and drawbacks, and each one has risks. I would go so far as to say each one can take a lot of work and a lot of courage to make it worthwhile. Not only is monogamy assumed to be the default setting, but too often it is simply defined as a limit — you are restricted to one person, no matter what the sex with that person is like. (And, of course, having no sex at all in a relationship also counts as… Read more »
I’m reluctant to try polyamory for the same reason I would be reluctant to try a threesome: I prefer to disappoint one woman at a time. : – )
Well, you could disappoint one woman at a time if the threesome were with an other woman and a man. ;-P
Good point. In that case her disappointment would probably be more intense, given that she would have a direct comparison. Side-by-side comparison, as it were. (Before you say anything, no, I don’t mean literally side by side.)
Personally, I like monogamy, but marriage is just plain stupid for men these days.
It’s not necessarily smart for women either.
Again, I ask, why do people get married? It is not entirely clear to me at all.
TWO,
I think social conditioning is a large part of it. I think marriage ensures a certain amount of stability if the purpose of the relationship is to make babies…but that’s about it from my perspective. I have zero desire to ever be married again.
Marriage is going to affect me much, much more negatively than it will my husband. He has terrible credit, and mine has been built up for years to be great. Now it won’t matter, because his credit will be my credit too. He has tons of unpaid student loans, which will now become mine. I fully support him financially already, so I’m not gaining anything money-wise. If we get a divorce, I’m likely going to have to give him *my* earnings. As for our dog, if we get divorced, he’ll likely get him because we bought the dog in his… Read more »
I’m glad that non-monogamy is getting more mainstream attention. I don’t always agree with Dan Savage, but I like this quote: “In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women ‘the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,’ we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”” He’s talking about past generation’s feminists, as this generation is extremely sex-positive and accepting of all lifestyles. What happened though, is that instead of allowing women to also explore multiple partners, society took that freedom away from men, so now… Read more »
As a happily married man who is 100% committed to monogamy what I have learned is that commitment is the essence of my marriage. It isn’t an obligatory commitment but one that I consciously choose willingly. When I make a commitment (marriage)I can honestly say that I stand by that commitment and will never break it. I believe everyone has a right to express their sexuality however they choose and I choose to commit to one woman for the rest of my life. The amazing thing is that this authentic heartfelt commitment results in a loving and fulfilling relationship that… Read more »
Don’t confuse us please Michael. Commitment and monogamy are not the same thing. Rather like love and sex.
Confusion leads to problems and hurt (as many a person can say).
Could you clarify please?
We’ve gone from women being bought and sold as possessions (or outright taken), to arraigned marriages (and still are in some traditions), to a love based choice for a mate. Marriage is in an evolutionary flux. My question is “what’s better for our species?” I don’t think the question should be “what’s best for me.” Men are biologically wired to spread their seed (as already mentioned). Women (as most studies show) have a drastic decline in sexual appetite after marriage. Speculation is that once a women has found “the right mate” to protect and provide for her offspring her sexual… Read more »
whyandwhat, any arrangement works so long as the species survives. I know of no group of humans that have gone extinct due to a failure to mate (though the Japanese, Germans and a few other countries are working really hard at changing that).
The better question is what kind of society do you want to live in and what sexual arrangments promote that type of society. I’m not sure that marriage as it presently exists in North America necessarily provides the best answer, but I’m reasonably sure it is better than at least some others.
“Compared to married men and single women, married women are more likely to be depressed and have other mental health problems, to experience stress, to rate themselves as unhappy, to be addicted to prescription drugs, to abuse alcohol, and to be disappointed with their choices in life. Moreover, these problems seem to increase the longer women have been married and the more children they have.” from Swinging in America by Curtis Bergstrand and Jennifer Blevins Sinski based on writings by C.L. Jones, L. Tepperman, and S.J. Wilson. It may be that women’s sex drives are lower after marriage because marriage… Read more »
Jeni, your science is off or possible just old. Check out Waite and Gallagher. Married women are more likely to be happy than other women.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bella-depaulo/harvard-press-was-right-t_b_480152.html
I remember some of the data in Waite and Gallagher compared never married people with married people. I’d have to look at it in more detail, but I know they did it for whether or not marriage adds wealth.
In any case, you can’t say marriage sucks for women when married women are happier. The evidence just doesn’t support the idea that marriage makes women unhappier.
I think long-term monogamous marriages benefit our species the most. Children need a lot of care and teaching. They need two parents for a longer time period than ever before. In our society, kids with married biological parents have a better chance of going to an Ivy League school and they get more financial support in college from their parents. So for kids, a united team of two biological parents is what usually works best. Because we are a jealous species, sexual monogamy is generally the best way to keep team parent together. Polygamous societies have certain disadvantages. When some… Read more »
I saw a heartbreaking story about what happens to all the excess boys in Warren Jeffries’ polygamous Mormon group in Texas. Most of the boys get kicked out of the community when they are teenagers and they are forced to figure out how to survive on their own with little education or no life experience or job skills. They are literally put on a bus with a few dollars in their pocket and told never to return. The problem is that all the girls are married off to older men in the community and there are too many boys with… Read more »
Ya, I’m afraid you’re right Jeni. Men have a scientific(?) ‘explanation’ for having sex with a lot of women, but although there have always been women who enjoyed way more than one partner, or more than one partner (non-monogamy), science can’t explain (ahem, excuse) us- we only get morally uptight epithets hurled at us.
Try reading Sex At Dawn. You’ll find some scientific explanations in there for female promiscuity. There’s just no cliche for it yet. 😉
I don’t judge the “poly” lifestyle on moral grounds at all – I know some folks in it who are miserable – but I don’t judge it. LIke Daddyfiles, I have a monogamous relationship that is working well for me – so I am biased to think that monogamy can be terrific. I would not frankly have time to have a bunch of boyfriends even if I wanted them. I have to wonder if that is part of the difference. My poly friends have a lot more time on their hands to sit and work through “jealousy” issues with their… Read more »
You’re right there can be a lot of drama in the poly world. It’s not the case for everybody though.
Monogamy can be very good. At the same time, it’s possible to be married and have less intimacy with your partner than single people sometimes have with one-night-stands. It really just depends on how deep you’re willing to go at any given moment and with any given person.
I believe the cliche for women with multiple partners is ‘whore’ or ‘slut’.