Do you think that monogamy is a social construct?

Calypso27

So this thread is probably going to blow up in my face but I am curious to know what people think. Do you think that monogamy is just a cultural or societal norm that is imposed on people and that it is unrealistic? Or do you believe it came about as an evolutionary advantage and that it isn't necessary any more? Or do you believe that human beings are meant to be monogamous?

I'm bi-sexual, a woman and I'm married to a woman and we have an open relationship, albeit with lots of rules. I tried to be monogamous but it isn't something that I am cut out to be. It's made me wonder about monogamy in general. My open relationship is generally a secret in that my friends IRL and my family don't know about it and I don't think they'd be very accepting.

I wonder if people in general are meant to be monogamous, if it is realistic to expect someone to be completely emotionally and physically faithful to someone else for the rest of their lives, or maybe it's just a case of monogamy suiting some people and not suiting others?

I'm not making a judgement here about people who are monogamous, so I don't want that to be taken from this post. I just wonder if people should explore their options a bit more rather than just accepting monogamy as default.

Merrion

It may well be but it is very common in a large number of cultures so it either arose many times or was an early social construct; - although it is notable that humans do not have external signs of oestrus, and usually engage in intercourse in private so there may have been some evolutionary process in play?

kneemos

You just want to eat it and have your cake.

smash

I get the feeling Kfallon will be busy writing pm's this afternoon following the results of this thread.

Calypso27

Calypso27 wrote: »

So this thread is probably going to blow up in my face but I am curious to know what people think. Do you think that monogamy is just a cultural or societal norm that is imposed on people and that it is unrealistic? Or do you believe it came about as an evolutionary advantage and that it isn't necessary any more? Or do you believe that human beings are meant to be monogamous?

I'm bi-sexual, a woman and I'm married to a woman and we have an open relationship, albeit with lots of rules. I tried to be monogamous but it isn't something that I am cut out to be. It's made me wonder about monogamy in general. My open relationship is generally a secret in that my friends IRL and my family don't know about it and I don't think they'd be very accepting.

I wonder if people in general are meant to be monogamous, if it is realistic to expect someone to be completely emotionally and physically faithful to someone else for the rest of their lives, or maybe it's just a case of monogamy suiting some people and not suiting others?

I'm not making a judgement here about people who are monogamous, so I don't want that to be taken from this post. I just wonder if people should explore their options a bit more rather than just accepting monogamy as default.

I don't know the answer to that but what is coming across from your post is.. I can't be in a monogamous relationship and I am excusing this by saying monogamy is a social construct nothing to do with me personally.

RDM_83 again

I wonder how long it will take taxa too post in this thread!

The Randy Riverbeast

I think it is somewhat but then you have people feeling jealousy and annoyed about their partner being with others so it could be a mix of natural and society.

silverharp

its a societal rule to create stability. Men will invest more in their own kids so a lot of rules about fidelity relate to preventing interlopers from creating uncertainty over parentage. There is probably a biological impetus for the rules also

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Monogamy is both social and cultural to certain societies and cultures and polygamy is to others. Historically in settled communities preventing elite men from legally acquiring multiple wives, improved the ability of lower-ranking men to acquire wives of their own. Thus the group was stronger by having more men who don't need to leave the group to acquire wives.

Speedwell

kneemos wrote: »

You just want to eat it and have your cake.

And there f'ing well isn't anything wrong with that so long as everyone has enough cake at the end of the day.

Of course monogamy is a social construct in human beings. Just look at all of the other alternatives throughout history and around the world. Even societies that officially sanction only monogamy nevertheless have many, many other non-sanctioned de-facto partnership styles in practice.

My husband and I are married, exclusive, and straight, though this is the first marriage for him and the third for me (Goldilocks here had a "too hot" marriage in which the ex became physically abusive, a "too cold" marriage in which the ex turned into a checked-out, nonfunctioning Internet addict, and now thinks she may have found "just right"). There's nothing "monogamous" about having three formal partners, whether simultaneously or in sequence. We just do what we agree is right for us.

You do you.

Calypso27

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't know the answer to that but what is coming across from your post is.. I can't be in a monogamous relationship and I am excusing this by saying monogamy is a social construct nothing to do with me personally.

I did say that I am not cut out to be monogamous and so this has made me curious about other people and humanity in general. I am not trying to excuse it, just explore the topic. It isn't as if I'm cheating so there is nothing to excuse.

andekwarhola

I think people tend to wave around the phrase 'social construct' to subtly undermine lifestyle choices they don't agree with, or to validate some underlying insecurity about their own.

You could just as easily use the term to describe anything from friendships/relationships to abstaining from murdering people or sexual molestation. Which is probably why it was such a perennial student debating chestnut, if memory serves.

On a basic level, isn't entering any kind of formal relationship at all, even an open one, a 'social construct'?

Personally, I'm usually suspicious whenever I see the need to extrapolate from one's lifestyle choices that other lifestyle choices might be limiting or prudish. And vice versa, or course.

Misery loves company.

silverharp

Merrion wrote: »

It may well be but it is very common in a large number of cultures so it either arose many times or was an early social construct; - although it is notable that humans do not have external signs of oestrus, and usually engage in intercourse in private so there may have been some evolutionary process in play?

Are you sure about that? I remember reading that strippers tend to get higher tips depending on where they are in their cycle?

valoren

It's all about choice. You choose what makes you happy.

If you're in an open relationship and you are both happy with it then what's the problem?
You say that friends and family would not be pleased? What give's them the right to be so judgemental on your life choices?

Your personal relationship is none of their damn business. You are both open with your relationship and there is no 'cheating' essentially so any busybody judging you is irrelevant, arrogant and incredibly disrespectful.

smash

Calypso27 wrote: »

I did say that I am not cut out to be monogamous and so this has made me curious about other people and humanity in general.

This is an interesting phrase. One that people will pull apart and dissect and twist and turn. No doubt you'll be told that you just haven't found 'the one' or other such rubbish.

Out of curiosity, from your own point of view, what reason would you have yourself to believe or moreso accept this?

Maguined

Morality is a social construct.

Calypso27

Calypso27 wrote: »

I did say that I am not cut out to be monogamous and so this has made me curious about other people and humanity in general. I am not trying to excuse it, just explore the topic. It isn't as if I'm cheating so there is nothing to excuse.

I don't mean excuse in that sense, its something that interested me: How when you look at various issue, the answered is always located externally to themselves. Surly the actual answer is that it is a mixture of societal influence and personal attributions that shape behaviour.

Monogamy or serial monogamy conferred an evolutionary advantage on humans. Early men sticking around for more than infancy, and providing food for nursing mothers meant that human brains could develop beyond other animals in the first years of life. Sticking around also protected the offspring from infanticide which gives another male a female with time on her hands and no distractions. So sticking around gave greater assurance that the fathers bloodline would continue, although its considered something of a conundrum since theoretically the man limits his opportunity for offspring by not taking off and putting it about a bit more.

Some cultures are monogamous, more are serially monogamous, but few are strictly so even if thats how they operate in practice. Monogamy is thought to be an aid to civilisation since it fosters peaceful co-operation, instead of violent clashes among males for the right to mate with a variety of females. It's co-operation that brings advance, since being distracted by where you're getting the next leg over tends to take up a lot of time.

It's not just one thing, it's more nuanced than just a construct or developmental advantage. Stable partnerships benefit most societies, lifelong partnerships may not be as relevant from that point of view.

Your Face

No.

andekwarhola

I remember we used to have furious teenage debates round at my mate's house about time being a social construct. And then run around to my ma's house before I got into trouble for being late.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't know the answer to that but what is coming across from your post is.. I can't be in a monogamous relationship and I am excusing this by saying monogamy is a social construct nothing to do with me personally.

I think you're inferring something that isn't implied.

ScumLord

Merrion wrote: »

although it is notable that humans do not have external signs of oestrus, and usually engage in intercourse in private so there may have been some evolutionary process in play?

Humans do go through oestrus, it's just the signs are a lot more subtle. We're only really starting to break our own behaviour codes. It could probably be argued humans are in heat from the moment they hit puberty, until the moment they hit menopause or die.

Humans wouldn't have traditionally had intercourse in private in the past either, privacy is a recent invention and didn't exist in the past. Just look at any of these historical dramas where a king get's married, half the court is in watching to make sure the marriage is consummated. Most normal people lived in one room houses with the entire family in the same room.

The problem for humans is that sex isn't just about reproduction. It's also about bonding, it's been used as a political tool, it's used to gain power over people. We're a pretty weird animal.

Speedwell wrote: »

(Cinderella here had a "too hot" marriage in which the ex became physically abusive, a "too cold" marriage in which the ex turned into a checked-out, nonfunctioning Internet addict, and now thinks she may have found "just right").

I think you're thinking of goldilocks.

Maguined

Maguined wrote: »

Morality is a social construct.

That's true but this situation is nothing to do with morality her partner know's and she is not being deceitful ( I presume )

Speedwell

I'd just like to jump in again to point out that all social institutions are social constructs. It's a false dichotomy to draw a line between "social constructs" and "biological imperatives", if that's what's being done here. If it's an attempt that's being made to draw conclusions from evolutionary biology and the social lives of animals, then the proper conclusion to draw is that human beings evolved to have the kind of societies we in fact observe, and the plain fact is that in these societies we have a myriad of possible relationship styles (societies/cultures don't, we observe, have a single relationship style, but rather a dominant one... well, not always even that). Diversity is good, evolutionarily speaking.

Speedwell

ScumLord wrote: »

I think you're thinking of goldilocks.

All too true. Will edit.

Calypso27

Calypso27 wrote: »

I just wonder if people should explore their options a bit more rather than just accepting monogamy as default.

I don't think anyone should accept anything as default if it makes them uncomfortable or unhappy (within the boundaries of what's ethical and legal of course ).

If you feel that a monogamous relationship is the only one that you can be in, then you should be with someone who feels the same, and the same then also applies to open relationships.

I think it comes down to how you view sex. If I was in an open relationship I would want it to only be open to sexual activity - and nothing emotional, and there would be very strict rules. Then again, my rules could possibly mean it wouldn't work for the other person. It's about finding someone whose preferences match yours really, and that's not for anyone else to decide.

Calypso27

smash wrote: »

This is an interesting phrase. One that people will pull apart and dissect and twist and turn. No doubt you'll be told that you just haven't found 'the one' or other such rubbish.

Out of curiosity, from your own point of view, what reason would you have yourself to believe or moreso accept this?

In every relationship I've ever had, I've had an urge to be with someone else, and more than just a passing urge, in fact I'd devote a lot of my time trying to avoid situations where I might feel tempted or I might act on my impulses. When I was younger I thought that perhaps I hadn't met ''the one'' yet but now I think that I am capable of being in love with someone and also sleeping with other people, for me they aren't mutually exclusive, but I know that isn't the case for everyone.

Paramite Pie

Honestly OP, you may have answered this in your own post -- some people may be more suited or inclined towards monogamy than other.

If your open relationship has rules and boundaries then that too is a 'construct'. However the allegedly high cheating rate among spouses would suggest that monogamy is not as common as it would seem.

Everyone has their different triggers and breaking points, could jealousy be as much a factor as loyalty.

Speedwell wrote: »

My husband and I are married, exclusive, and straight, though this is the first marriage for him and the third for me (Cinderella here had a "too hot" marriage in which the ex became physically abusive, a "too cold" marriage in which the ex turned into a checked-out, nonfunctioning Internet addict, and now thinks she may have found "just right").

Would that not be Goldilocks?

Speedwell

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Would that not be Goldilocks?

Fixed it already

Idle Passerby

I think its largely societal but it makes sence for the majority for various other reasons too.

The psychological reasons for monogamy have to do with establishing stable family situations. Nature isnt all that concerned with looking after kids til they reach 18 though, hence the "7 year itch".

I dont think we are neccessarily programmed to find one partner and stay loyal to them for the next 40-50 years but it suits society to have it that way. Also, Id imagine as you get past the procreating/ child rearing years and head into old age its psychologically better to have caring relationships, whether romantic or otherwise. Society anticipates your youthful lust will grow into your old age companion.