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.

DEFTLEFTHAND

What about egs of monogamy in other animals?

smash

Calypso27 wrote: »

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.

Would you get jealous if your partner was with someone else?

Calypso27

Calypso27 wrote: »

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.

But why are you seeking permission( from society ) to feel like that, the way you feel is the way you feel, do you feel oppressed by a largely monogamous society and that is why you can't tell your friends and family.

Calypso27

smash wrote: »

Would you get jealous if your partner was with someone else?

I do struggle with jealousy, in fact I can be quite jealous and possessive. That's my own problem and my own issue though and it's something that I have to deal with myself and try my best not to take that out on my partner and vice versa.

smash

Idle Passerby wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't suggest that society anticipates anything but more that society is programmed to believe that a monogamous marriage is the way to go and anything else is taboo and wrong. This is then backed by obscene marriage and divorce laws.

smash

smash wrote: »

I wouldn't suggest that society anticipates anything but more that society is programmed to believe that a monogamous marriage is the way to go and anything else is taboo and wrong. This is then backed by obscene marriage and divorce laws.

Society does not exist as a separate entity from the individuals in the society, society is not something out there judging and holding people back. It is made up of individuals.

JohnnyChimpo

It's hardly a binary issue.

Probably safe enough to say that monogamy or at least short-term mate-pairing confers reproductive adantages in social groups of primates, and is reinforced both on the purely biological level (oxytocin, etc.) and via social pressure, which has become highly ritualised in many animals and formalised in humans.

Whether monogamy still confers any selective advantage in the Western world is a more interesting question. There are probably studies that point to psychological advantages in children raised by stable monogamous couples (hetero or otherwise), and maybe studies which show that monogamous people tend to be happier and more fulfilled. But those inferences tend to be pretty weak, rely on a lot of self-reported data, have a lot of confounding socioeconomic factors, and are often fairly worthless for proving causative effects.

For sure, one thing monogamy definitely facilitates these days is financial stability and resource-pooling, e.g. there's fairly few people getting mortgages outside of monogamous arrangements. In fact, I'd wager that as religious influence in society wanes, financial pressures are probably the dominant normative influence promoting monogamy, closely followed by and intertwined with biological influence.

silverharp

smash wrote: »

I wouldn't suggest that society anticipates anything but more that society is programmed to believe that a monogamous marriage is the way to go and anything else is taboo and wrong. This is then backed by obscene marriage and divorce laws.

It was necessary in the past when resources were scarce. If you had gone back in time and as their God gave them a set of 21st century values, the society would have fallen apart.

Speedwell

For those people who think there is one "right" way to have partnerships... Among my own friends and family I have the following (for example):

- People on their second, third, even fourth marriages (mostly in the US where divorce is relatively easy), married to people on their own first, second, etc. marriages. Hope springs eternal.
- A middle-aged writer who travels a lot and is part of a large, open network of people who vary from "I fancy you" to "I want a formal nonexclusive relationship with you". He calls this "polyamory" but I think of it as something even more open than that. This is what works for him and all of his temporary and permanent partners.
- A 17-year-old boy who considers himself straight, in a long term relationship with someone who considers themselves "assigned female at birth" but agender.
- A woman and man, both devout Christians, who began living together after his wife had been in the hospital in a persistent vegetative state for three years. He refused to divorce his wife because otherwise she would stop receiving his medical benefits as a veteran (yes, this happened in the US). Once she died, he married his other partner.
- Lots of people in what would have been considered common-law marriages, some for 30 years and more.
- A young man who thought he was horribly damaged and unable to have a long-term relationship with just one woman, and who would break up with women he loved deeply because he couldn't resist the urge to cheat and wanted to be as fair to them as possible... until I made him aware that polyamory was a thing and everyone could be happy if they were all in agreement.

I'm not an activist, not a bohemian type, nobody special. The Christian woman and man were my own mother and stepfather, in their mid-60s. This is not uncommon. To hold up just one sort of partnership as "the right one" or "the only one" is just... mindbogglingly not the case.

Calypso27

mariaalice wrote: »

But why are you seeking permission( from society ) to feel like that, the way you feel is the way you feel, do you feel oppressed by a largely monogamous society and that is why you can't tell your friends and family.

I suppose my partner doesn't want people to know, mainly because she feels like society would judge us and judge our relationship, and that people would believe that we are just not right for each other or just not meant to be together, and then I have a lot of guilt around that.

smash

mariaalice wrote: »

Society does not exist as a separate entity from the individuals in the society, society is not something out there judging and holding people back. It is made up of individuals.

Society is very much something out there judging and holding people back. Made a mistake by getting married? Or grew to become unhappy within your marriage? Tough shít... wait 4 years and pay a fortune to get your real sense of freedom back. And even at that, you could still be paying for your mistake for years to come.

Paramite Pie

Speedwell wrote: »

Fixed it already

Well I'm just a slow typer...:P

silverharp

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

It's hardly a binary issue.

Probably safe enough to say that monogamy or at least short-term mate-pairing confers reproductive adantages in social groups of primates, and is reinforced both on the purely biological level (oxytocin, etc.) and via social pressure, which has become highly ritualised in many animals and formalised in humans.

Whether monogamy still confers any selective advantage in the Western world is a more interesting question. There are probably studies that point to psychological advantages in children raised by stable monogamous couples (hetero or otherwise), and maybe studies which show that monogamous people tend to be happier and more fulfilled. But those inferences tend to be pretty weak, rely on a lot of self-reported data, have a lot of confounding socioeconomic factors, and are often fairly worthless for proving causative effects.

For sure, one thing monogamy definitely facilitates these days is financial stability and resource-pooling, e.g. there's fairly few people getting mortgages outside of monogamous arrangements. In fact, I'd wager that as religious influence in society wanes, financial pressures are probably the dominant normative influence promoting monogamy, closely followed by and intertwined with biological influence.

Indeed, fear of divorce is a very good reason for instance to be very selective of how you approach relationships. No man in the clouds required :pac:

Calypso27

Calypso27 wrote: »

I suppose my partner doesn't want people to know, mainly because she feels like society would judge us and judge our relationship, and that people would believe that we are just not right for each other or just not meant to be together, and then I have a lot of guilt around that.

Well the way I view it is if people are happy comfortable and secure in what ever type of relationship they have then it is nobody business but their own and certainly nothing to do with society/the law/the state. If they are extrapolating on to society, looking for permission and so on then maybe they are not happy and comfortable with the situation.

smash

mariaalice wrote: »

Well the way I view it is if people are happy comfortable and secure in what ever type of relationship they have then it is nobody business but their own and certainly nothing to do with society/the law/the state. If they are extrapolating on to society, looking for permission and so on then maybe they are not happy and comfortable with the situation.

But then if they're unhappy it becomes very much to do with society/the law/the state.

smash

smash wrote: »

Society is very much something out there judging and holding people back. Made a mistake by getting married? Or grew to become unhappy within your marriage? Tough shít... wait 4 years and pay a fortune to get your real sense of freedom back. And even at that, you could still be paying for your mistake for years to come.

Laws are made by individuals not by this separate entity called 'society'

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

It's hardly a binary issue.

Probably safe enough to say that monogamy or at least short-term mate-pairing confers reproductive adantages in social groups of primates, and is reinforced both on the purely biological level (oxytocin, etc.) and via social pressure, which has become highly ritualised in many animals and formalised in humans..

Just for clarity, monogamy is extremely rare among primates. Only gibbons bonobos and Azara's owl monkeys have been shown to be monogamous.

The hormone vasopressin is more responsible than oxytocin.

smash

smash wrote: »

But then if they're unhappy it becomes very much to do with society/the law/the state.

That will change as society changes at one time we had no divorce of any sort here.

Ice Maiden

It is I'd say, but it doesn't mean people are automatically unhappy after a certain amount of time with the same person. And sometimes people claim that because they feel that way, or would feel that way, everyone else must.

Also, I'm not entirely sure either - aren't there animals that have mates for life?

Calypso27

mariaalice wrote: »

Well the way I view it is if people are happy comfortable and secure in what ever type of relationship they have then it is nobody business but their own and certainly nothing to do with society/the law/the state. If they are extrapolating on to society, looking for permission and so on then maybe they are not happy and comfortable with the situation.

It's very easy to say that, but the reality is very different. For example, would you have said the same thing to gay people living in Ireland even 30 years ago? It wasn't even legal to have homosexual sex, so that was very much an issue of law. Aside from that though, when society in general casts negative aspersions on your relationship it can be difficult to ignore, and the opinions of friends and family matter.