Always Coming, Never Here

If a couple devotes all their time and energy to one another, but remains open to the possibility of spending time and energy with more people should time and energy stores become greater, I wouldn't call that couple "believers" in monogamy or even necessarily monogamous. On the other hand, nearly every time I have spoken to monogamous people about the root reasons for their monogamy, they almost always go back to "I don't want to share (time/energy/partner)" and those words can only come from possessiveness, which I think is a negative thing and stems back to insecurity and jealousy.

To me, asking about "believing" in monogamy is asking if one thinks monogamy is "the true path" and sounds practically religious.

Posted by

We talked about polygamy/monogamy in one of my bio classes in college and it's always very weird applying things you know to be true about other species to humans. Not sure what it is, but people are very cautious (or perhaps uneasy) when doing that. I beleive we came to the general concensus that human beings are serial monogamists and not actually true monogamists that you would see with some pair bonded for life species.

Posted by

It seems like comparing to other primates really makes the most sense - what do other primates do usually? I've heard about "paying for sex" among some species and so forth...

Posted by

Depends on the species of primate in all honesty. One of the books I just read had to do with genetic diversity (oh heavy "leisure reading") and used gorillas vs chimpanzees to compare mating habits, etc.

A quick google search and filtering though the primary source papers seems to lead that for primate it's all over the place. You've got polygyny in gorillas and some old world monkeys and a few rare cases of plyangry in some monkeys. Monogamy you'll see the gibbon as the only ape listed, but again some species of monkeys (both old world and new world). Chimps are listed as under promiscuity due to males not having sole access to females.

Way too much info, but check out some of the links if you search for "monogamy in primates". Real interesting stuff.

Short answer: primates are complicated. Since we are also primates, we are also complicated. :P I still think serial monogamy is the best way to describe humans (having one partner for x time then moving on to one partner only for x time...etc). For humans you have a lot of enviromental factors (I'll list religion and the concept of the "social norm" for this) but not sure if that really is the ideal or natural thing.

Posted by

Polyandry...not polyangry....Though I bet the males are none to happy. :P

Posted by

I wonder if there's any way we could correlate mating behaviors to the overall evolutionary branching of primate species and see if there's any pattern? Or continue to trace back down evolutionary roots until we hit the spot where mating behavior is no longer diverse?

Posted by

You probably could. You'd probably need to look at a lot of different characterists that define the species then go from there. I think environment is going to have a huge impact though.

Posted by

Wikipedia to the rescue! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy#Testis_size)

Posted by

Reading the answers to this question is really a fascinating exercise.

Posted by

It is also difficult for me to believe anyone stays monogamous for reasons other than fear and insecurity. However, humans are also *lazy* and busy earning money, and doing things to achieve status. A "monogamous" relationship is one part of a public life that makes someone an upstanding citizen. Some people are scared into doing the right thing, others are simply putting on a front, and others truly believe and want to do the idealized picture because it feels rewarding.

Also, even though cheating is rampant, how frequent is it? Once per year, once per month? Under what circumstances? (Only when the relationship has instability, or to prove there can be another lover /romance for long periods of time?)

I wonder if more people cheat at lonely/unstable times in their relationships, then polyamory - other lovers at stable times would seem destabilizing even if it is not the intent.

Posted by

Stability is definitely always an issue no matter what the dynamics. And I think all the other things you mention about status and money tie into stability as well. It just seems like stability must always be more of an issue in monogamy though, because there is only one egg in the basket! More people means more potential support for tough times. Logistics and timing can be more complicated, and could cause instability, but I bet there are monogamous couples who have timing issues just because their lives are generally busy.

I have to wonder though whether those "reasons" you cite for cheating aren't also just rationalizations on the part of monogamous folk - are those cause, or effect? And at any rate, if people seek the company of others at unstable times, isn't that itself an argument for multiple relationships?

Posted by

"if people seek the company of others at unstable times, isn't that itself an argument for multiple relationships?"
Not necessarily, it could be to prove they are worthy, prove they have money, prove they can seduce someone, prove they can occupy their time with others without depending on their absent significant other. All or any of these reasons factor into relationships and extra-relationship relationships, but are they grounds for saying someone has a relationship or is just sleeping with someone to prove something?

Where can we draw the line? If we are interested in body contact, then any single contact might be considered "relationship." If we are interested in saying relationships are only those recognized by our family who recognizes marriage for life, than the affairs might amount to nothing and it is up to the individual whether they chose to use their time in this manner. If we believe a relationship may come out of a random or closeted affair, then we might be insecure, afraid our partners may leave us because they had a short fling isolated from the social sphere, and they might think so too!

The timing issue... yeah, some couples have this problem if the two complainers I sat next to in a coffee shop last week had anything to say, complain about. Their partners and their job schedules were out of sync, but gosh they were determined. That's the other thing, even though I said earlier that laziness is a reason for monogamy, another is the drive to prove things and succeed in relationships even through hardship. I would classify this as an element of romance. So staying monogamous for some people is triumphant, winning the game.

Posted by

rovanda.livejournal.com

I can't necessarily argue that your insecurity or jealousy statement is wrong. If my partner was with someone else, I'd feel like I wasn't enough to keep him happy and then feel insecure and jealous. And vice-versa. I do feel that it over-simplifies the issue, though.

I don't think there are many people in this world with enough self esteem not to want/need to feel like they're the most important person in their partner's life, even if you would consider such a high level of self-esteem as ideal. And in such an emotionally self-sufficient world, where's the need for any committment at all? Social partnership would be unnecessary, as would the adjustments and compromises that strengthen long-term partnerships.

I think that partnerships (which many failed romantic relationships are not - thus the prevalence of cheating) are very valuable relationships to the people involved, and that making choices according to what strengthens and preserves the partnership goes beyond insecurity and jealousy - I won't deny those feelings are part of it, but they're not the *only* reason to choose monogamy. In a real partnership, two (or more, in some cases) people whose attitudes and aptitudes mesh well can face the world as a team and accomplish more, and more happily, than they would alone.

Sexual monogamy is just one of the many compromises and adjustments that partners use to keep their relationship healthy and beneficial to both (or all)of them. It seems like a reasonable choice to me!

Is monogamy, sexual or otherwise, right for every human in the world? Of course not. But I think it's a good option for some of us.

Posted by

There are many successful partnerships (in all senses of the world) that have more than two members; in fact, I'd argue that partnerships with more than two people accomplish many more things.

Commitment isn't necessarily about filling emotional vacuums. And commitment isn't synonymous with monogamy/monamory. I think a person becomes committed to another person through devotion - if you want to talk about ideals, that should be the highest one of all, to simply be devoted to another person because that person is great in all senses of the word. Not out of duty, or social pressure, or anything but simply because it feels right to love that person. Even a completely emotionally stable/satisfied person can still want to devote him or herself to another - in fact, that kind of commitment is a truly selfless one, because that person isn't doing it to fill a hole or meet a need, it's just happening because it's right and good.

When you look at it that way, the question still left in the air is - why should a person only be devoted to one other person? And of course the counter-claim there is "because that person receives all the benefits of the sole devotion" and that goes back to not being willing to share again. What's so wrong with sharing? If you can afford to "donate" some of your resources to others, why wouldn't you? And I'd argue that now, more than any other time in human history, more people have the resources to spend more time and energy on more people and spread more love everywhere throughout the world.

So why is any particular limitation or compromise necessary? I think compromise certainly creates easier choices, but why is making the easier choice the best (and as some would claim, the only) choice?

Would a fund manager put only one stock in his or her portfolio, or diversify it?

Posted by

"If you can afford to "donate" some of your resources to others, why wouldn't you? And I'd argue that now, more than any other time in human history, more people have the resources to spend more time and energy on more people and spread more love everywhere throughout the world."

They may have the "resources" and the idea to spread love in the world, but do they have the self-love? Do they have all the love they seek in life before they set out to share? In the book "plant spirit shamanism" by Heaven and Charing, they quote a peruvian shaman who says that european people who visit him may want to heal the planet... however it is really permissible and acceptable to get what their spirits want first, their own personal fulfillment of love for their lives.

Posted by

Well said!

Posted by

The question reminds me of an old joke:

Q: "Do you believe in the Bible?"
A: "Hell, I've seen one!"

Here's why I practice monogamy. Human relationships are very complex and it's challenging for two people to make a relationship work. Building and strengthening the relationship requires a great deal of investment. I agree that love is not a scarce commodity, but as I invest more time and energy into a particular relationship, the value of that particular relationship increases.

When more people enter the mix, it becomes even more complicated, requires more work, and the probability of one or more of the relationships failing increases.

If I already have a relationship that I value highly, then the additional risk of additional partners is not worth the additional benefits of additional partners.

Not to me, anyway. I support other people's right to make their own choices based on their own priorities and experiences.

it's quite obvious that the whole concept of cheating goes away when people realize that love is not a scarce commodity,

Sadly, it's not that easy. Non-monogamous partners can still "cheat" by breaking their commitments and being dishonest in other ways. I have, regretfully, witnessed many examples.

Posted by

By this logic, no one should ever undertake any hard task because there's such an easy, "well trod" path available!

It's almost insultingly obvious to say that more relationships = more work. But okay, I will grant this easily. However, more work should also achieve more reward! More love! That is in fact the whole point. I also don't necessarily agree with your assertion that the probability of relationship failure increases - you can't know that, no one can, because the majority of relationships are monogamous and I can't think of any actual research that's been done on the subject of poly versus mono fail rates. So we're limited to anecdote and personal experience, and what we know about the failure rates of monogamous relationships. I realize this turns it into a he said/she said argument and that we're practically in a religious debate here, but that's where we are. My common sense though tells me that if people are really willing to try taking this path, the rewards naturally should be greater because the risks are greater and multiplicity of love and relationships could be a pretty amazing thing to try and pursue.

I realize that I'm taking a pretty aggressive position with this whole thing. Frankly, I feel very similarly about religion and don't believe that religion helps humanity enough to balance out how much it hurts it. Monogamy seems to me to be the same thing, and people seem to always use the same arguments in both cases (people make their own choices about believing in religion, et cetera). But frankly, I don't want people who treat me medically or govern me to believe that I'm going to hell if I don't follow their rules, or that they can speak in tongues and talk to their god and push the button on the nuclear arsenal and send everyone to heaven... so I feel pretty anti-religion. At the same time, when I see so much pain and suffering over the various failures of monogamy, I have to ask myself why people don't question the model more and try to think of other options or pursue other paths.

Posted by

rovanda.livejournal.com

Actually, I believe Agthorr was sharing his reasons for making his choice, not trying to persuade *you* to make the same choice as him... Are you trying to persuade us to change our minds about monogamy and make the same choice as you? If so, why?

Posted by

I believe Agthorr was sharing his reasons for making his choice, not trying to persuade *you* to make the same choice as him

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

Posted by

I am making a persuasive argument that polyamory is a model more people should explore. I think it's important for there to be more love in the world, more people need to be loved.

Posted by

By this logic, no one should ever undertake any hard task because there's such an easy, "well trod" path available!

All I'm saying is that the risks of non-monogamy are not worth the rewards of non-monogamy to me personally. If it's worth it to you, by all means, go for it! :-)

At the same time, when I see so much pain and suffering over the various failures of monogamy, I have to ask myself why people don't question the model more and try to think of other options or pursue other paths.

FWIW, due to the social taboos surrounding non-monogamy, most of the non-monogamous people I have know typically don't advertise the fact.

Posted by

But you can't accurately judge the risks. How do you know that the risks and rewards of monamory aren't generally worse/less than the risks and rewards of polyamory? There's no data supporting that theory.

If anything, I think the only model that can be used is one where we say that every relationship, when considered individually, has the same "chance" of failure due to the usual circumstances. I will grant that there is a possibility of complexity arising from interactions between the people in the multiple relationships, but if we just treat the relationships as separate objects that don't directly affect each other (or all people don't interact with each other - which is a perfectly reasonable scenario) then it seems to me that in fact the chances of a person being in a good relationship at any given time are increased! In other words, you could roll one d6 and try to get a 6... or you could roll 3d6 and try to get a 6. There's a better chance of getting a 6 with more dice, that just seems obvious to me.

Posted by

But you can't accurately judge the risks. How do you know that the risks and rewards of monamory aren't generally worse/less than the risks and rewards of polyamory?

Rarely in life can we accurately and precisely measure the risks and rewards. ;-)

I estimate the risks and rewards as best I can... incorporating the risk that I may be wrong about the precise value of the risks and rewards. *grin*

but if we just treat the relationships as separate objects that don't directly affect each other (or all people don't interact with each other - which is a perfectly reasonable scenario) then it seems to me that in fact the chances of a person being in a good relationship at any given time are increased!

Ah, but there is also a much greater chance that at least one of the relationships will be going up in flames.

Posted by

Every relationship has a one hundred percent chance of failure!

Posted by

I meant that increasing the number of relationships increases the probability that one of the relationships is going up in flames *right now*. If you roll more 6-sided dice at once, you're more likely to roll a 6, but you're also more likely to roll a 1.

Posted by

That's true, but again, if the risks are overall the same per relationship, even if one goes down in flames, you've got the support of two other ones to help you through that.

Posted by

rotting-orange.livejournal.com

After having been burned by prejudice and relationship fail, I doubt I personally would ever practice poly again. The older I get, the more I begin to think it's like Communism. Kinda cool in theory, fail in practice.

Posted by