Is monogamy realistic?

[pepsi91307]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28...day/index.html

Thoughts?

[Krishna]

<QUOTE>Experts on relationships and human sexuality said that while we may not be wired to stay faithful to one partner for a lifetime, we can make a conscious decision to do so -- a choice that still comes with powerful emotional, biological and economic benefits.</QUOTE>

I think that is really the key paragraph in this article. We can make a CHOICE as to whether or not we engage is affairs...having an affair isn't a biological certainty based on our wiring.

[hoodie]

I wholeheartedly agree with Krishna. I always liked this quote from the movie "Closer":

(For the record, Dan just confessed to cheating on Alice.)

Dan: I fell in love with her, Alice.
Alice: Oh, as if you had no choice? There's a moment, there's always a moment, "I can do this, I can give into this, or I can resist it", and I don't know when your moment was, but I bet you there was one.

Biology shmology. There's always a choice.

[Samwell]

As far as cheating goes, I totally agree that you choose to open that door (or at least not close it).

Seems like the adultery question is really a piece of the larger point, though, that the "till death do us part" model of ideal human coupling is going by the wayside. To me that's not exactly a startling revelation...

Historically there are all kinds of cultural reasons that made lifelong monogamy the preferred model (following the "buy as many wives as you can afford" model, of course) to build a stable society. I think many of those reasons have largely gone away (to the benefit of women, mostly).

To me the more realistic default situation for human beings is serial monogamy. It seems clear that there is something inherent in human beings that prefers being exclusively coupled up, but at the same time it does seem unrealistic to expect every union to last the 50+ years our modern life spans might allow.

I’m definitely not anti-lifelong monogamy, though. I just think people grow and change, in ways you simply cannot predict. Hopefully you and your partner grow in similar directions and continue to hold similar values, but there is no way to guarantee this. Nor is it a failure to recognize and address this…

[hoodie]

You've got a good point, Sam. I didn't mean to come off as naieve there and make it seem like I think everybody can just get married and live happily ever after.

I DI think it's a bit of a cheap explanation to put it largely on biology in the way the article mentions. More often, it's people growing and changing and failing in communication (as you've mentioned) that leads to the dissolution of "forever" marriage.

[pepsi91307]

Originally Posted by Samwell

I’m definitely not anti-lifelong monogamy, though. I just think people grow and change, in ways you simply cannot predict. Hopefully you and your partner grow in similar directions and continue to hold similar values, but there is no way to guarantee this. Nor is it a failure to recognize and address this…

Well put.

This is where my opinion lies generally.

[Schecter_Guy]

I don't believe the biology thing for a second. Society can be blamed, but not biology. At our most basic instinct people couple up to take care of children. Our most basic instinct is to be able to take care of a defenseless child. That is in our biology. Society now allows us to pursue strictly our wants as our needs are so easily met.

All in all the our take on relationships may be a good reason why each generation is becoming more and more screwed up. We are becoming accepting of selfish pursuits such as cheating. This "its all about me" attitude is being learned right in the home.

[wordsmith]

Selfishness and lack of accountability is definitely becoming an increasingly societally accepted and even glorified thing. Commitment is a choice. Whatever the context, if you fail to follow through and make good on your commitments, it's because of your own free will, not because you're hardwired otherwise.

[gemma-dahl]

I think that monogamy is simply not realistic for some people. That's why some people opt to pursue other arrangements such as polyamory or open relationships. These arrangements are very different from cheating, each couple is free to decide their own rules and boundaries - and generally, they're difficult to explain if you're of the belief that monogamy is the way to go. It's also possible to be polyamorous and committed, because people are committed in different areas.

I am not in a polyamorous relationship. But I know people who are. Of those people, the relationships have worked, or have not worked at about the same rate as monogamous relationships have. It is all dependent upon the maturity, honesty, and communication skills of the parties involved - just like monogamy. I recognize that polyamory isn't acceptable to a lot of people, and that's fine. But to people who practice it, monogamy doesn't work for either party. It's just interesting to consider all of the different ways people have relationships and families.

[Schecter_Guy]

Cool I guess. If that's what they want its cool. I would just hope people in open relationships not bother with kids. Seems like a terrible environment to raise kids.

[gemma-dahl]

Originally Posted by Schecter_Guy

Cool I guess. If that's what they want its cool. I would just hope people in open relationships not bother with kids. Seems like a terrible environment to raise kids.

So you know the sordid details of your parents' sex life then? Because I'm perfectly happy to toil under the illusion that they did it twice, ever, and that was it.

My point is, mature adults don't discuss their sex lives with their children. And you know what environments are worse for kids? Married parents who fight and refuse to divorce "for the kids' sake," when really, it's for themselves. Abusive parents. Neglectful parents. Molesting parents. Absent parents. Parents who let the television raise their children. And I can go on...

[Schecter_Guy]

Originally Posted by gemma-dahl

So you know the sordid details of your parents' sex life then? Because I'm perfectly happy to toil under the illusion that they did it twice, ever, and that was it.

My point is, mature adults don't discuss their sex lives with their children. And you know what environments are worse for kids? Married parents who fight and refuse to divorce "for the kids' sake," when really, it's for themselves. Abusive parents. Neglectful parents. Molesting parents. Absent parents. Parents who let the television raise their children. And I can go on...

Its not a matter of discussing sex life. Its a matter of spending time with a bunch of people trying to get laid rather than taking the responsibility of taking care of the kids. Its already dificult enough giving children the proper amount of attention with just a spouse. It would be a helluva lot more difficult when the parent is going around always trying to get some ass. Plus it gives the parent too easy of an out. Things get hectic at home, just bounce and hang with "the other" and not bother. The problem is parents these days already have too many easy outs, no need to make it that much easier.

Maybe its not a matter of relationships being unrealistic, maybe parenthood is unrealistic... Or maybe sacrificing a bit is a little unrealistic.

[wordsmith]

Originally Posted by Schecter_Guy

Maybe its not a matter of relationships being unrealistic, maybe parenthood is unrealistic... Or maybe sacrificing a bit is a little unrealistic.

Again, I think this is what (some) people WANT to think...that being committed to somebody other than yourself is unrealistic and that humans are hardwired not to be accountable to one another...be it a spouse or partner, or kids, or family, or whoever. I don't buy it. Were that the case, global society would never have been established in familial and/or tribal units...humans would have evolved as predominantly isolated hermits...and obviously died out... if the anthropoligical pull were to only be beholden to yourself and never make sacrifices for the sake of having connections with others in your life.

[gemma-dahl]

Originally Posted by Schecter_Guy

Its not a matter of discussing sex life. Its a matter of spending time with a bunch of people trying to get laid rather than taking the responsibility of taking care of the kids. Its already dificult enough giving children the proper amount of attention with just a spouse. It would be a helluva lot more difficult when the parent is going around always trying to get some ass. Plus it gives the parent too easy of an out. Things get hectic at home, just bounce and hang with "the other" and not bother. The problem is parents these days already have too many easy outs, no need to make it that much easier.

Maybe its not a matter of relationships being unrealistic, maybe parenthood is unrealistic... Or maybe sacrificing a bit is a little unrealistic.

But you're assuming that people who have these arrangements can't make it work. You're also assuming that the arrangements are about casual sex. You're furthermore assuming that people can't take on other lovers without letting parenting go to hell. People can be accountable to a spouse, a family, a unit, and more, and yet still keep other sexual or lifestyle arrangements - and if it works for them, why knock it?

There are poly families who offer much better homes for children than some of the traditional married couples out there. If you don't like the idea of polyamory, don't understand it, or you think it's nasty, that's valid, and no one will take that away from you. But I also think it's people's right to live as they see fit.

There is an assumption that there is a moral decline, a ruin of the American family, and the no-fault divorce, feminism, cheating, and anything else are named as causes. But there have been dysfunctional families throughout history. There has also been non-monogamy throughout history. The difference between then and now is that now, people can make choices without being exiled from society. (Sometimes. Depends on the city, the country, the town, etc.)

[Schecter_Guy]

Originally Posted by wordsmith

Again, I think this is what (some) people WANT to think...that being committed to somebody other than yourself is unrealistic and that humans are hardwired not to be accountable to one another...be it a spouse or partner, or kids, or family, or whoever. I don't buy it. Were that the case, global society would never have been established in familial and/or tribal units...humans would have evolved as predominantly isolated hermits...and obviously died out... if the anthropoligical pull were to only be beholden to yourself and never make sacrifices for the sake of having connections with others in your life.

Hehehe, I think you missed the sarcasm there. I agree with you. The human race originally would not have been able to survive if not for monogamy. I actually mentioned that in an earlier post.

Originally Posted by gemma-dahl

But you're assuming that people who have these arrangements can't make it work. You're also assuming that the arrangements are about casual sex. You're furthermore assuming that people can't take on other lovers without letting parenting go to hell. People can be accountable to a spouse, a family, a unit, and more, and yet still keep other sexual or lifestyle arrangements - and if it works for them, why knock it?

There are poly families who offer much better homes for children than some of the traditional married couples out there. If you don't like the idea of polyamory, don't understand it, or you think it's nasty, that's valid, and no one will take that away from you. But I also think it's people's right to live as they see fit.

There is an assumption that there is a moral decline, a ruin of the American family, and the no-fault divorce, feminism, cheating, and anything else are named as causes. But there have been dysfunctional families throughout history. There has also been non-monogamy throughout history. The difference between then and now is that now, people can make choices without being exiled from society. (Sometimes. Depends on the city, the country, the town, etc.)

Actually I think it would be easier if it was just casual sex. Having more people in a commited relationship would lead to more chances for neglect and chances for more drama. If the other people in the relationship are separate from the household that is more time the person is away from the household. This is just more chance for neglect. If the person is part of the household, it is just more chance for drama from people that are not even the kid's parents.

Yes they do have a right, but just because you can do something does not make it a good idea. And I believe unless you have statistics you probably have just as much of an assumption as I do on the success of polyamorous relationships.

Yes dysfunction has always existed. There is no doubt. But it has been shown that this dysfunction is snowballing and becoming a greater problem. Most of it due to us acting on impulse, urge, and desire rather than necessity. There are many examples of that especially in American society.