Do you think that monogamy is a social construct?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 01-03-2016 03:16PM

What about egs of monogamy in other animals?

smash · 01-03-2016 03:16PM

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?

01-03-2016 03:17PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:19PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:21PM

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.

01-03-2016 03:25PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:25PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:26PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:26PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:29PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:31PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:31PM

Speedwell wrote: »

Fixed it already

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

silverharp · 01-03-2016 03:32PM

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:

01-03-2016 03:37PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:38PM

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.

01-03-2016 03:39PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:41PM

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.

01-03-2016 03:41PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:43PM

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 · 01-03-2016 03:45PM

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.

Walter H Price · 01-03-2016 03:47PM

Absolutely we are not an instinctively Monogamous creature

there are no Monogamous species among the other Great Apes. Truly monogamous animals mate for life the prime examples are often found in the bird kingdom , with Geese , Swans, Barn Owls and Penguins. in fact among Mammals as a whole only an estimated 3%-5% have been observed to show monogamous tendencies these include Beavers , Wolves and some hoofed animals.

The Animals with possibly the closest style of societal relationship modeling to humans is the Gibbon (A type of Monkey , not an Ape) Within Gibbon society partnerships form males and females raise young , however cheating , breakups and the formation of secondary relationships , akin to remarriage have all been observed among Gibbons.

Religion has played a huge role in the construct of monogamy among some Human Society , however Arabic society and Mormons are closer to our true Ape like instincts with family groups made up of an Alfa Male and a number of females i.e polygamy.

ScumLord · 01-03-2016 03:48PM

Courtney Immense Dime wrote: »

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

Maybe Bonobos are technically monogamous when it comes to reproduction (I don't know) but when it comes to sex they'll do everyone but their mother. Intercourse is used as a way of conflict resolution.

01-03-2016 03:49PM

Calypso27 wrote: »

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.

You are right people do feel very oppressed in to behaving in a certain way by this thing called 'society'

ScumLord · 01-03-2016 03:50PM

Penguins aren't as monogamous as we've been led to believe.

01-03-2016 03:51PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

Not long given two people PMed me and asked me specifically to post

But thank you for thinking of me. Nice to know I feature in some peoples consciousness - for better or worse

Calypso27 wrote: »

Or do you believe that human beings are meant to be monogamous?

I think we have to be careful with terms like "meant" as it implies forethought or design for which we have no evidence.

But it does seem that most people are just not capable of emotionally surviving anything but monogamous relationships. Jealousy and conflict seem to arise for most people who try it. I certainly would not be recommending non-monogamy or open relationships to anyone. Most relationships - by far - I suspect would not survive it.

That said however - usually when someone points to a piece of human behavior and says "Is it because of X - Y or Z" the first question that pops into my head every time is "Why not all of the above?".

A lot of social constructs stem from a symbiotic evolution with our biological state of being. Each often ramifying and promoting the other.

So I would say that it is likely something that evolved in us - we built social constructs around it - and those social constructs ramified and promoted more of it being natural to us. And so on in an iterative process.

Calypso27 wrote: »

maybe it's just a case of monogamy suiting some people and not suiting others?

I would expect that to be the case. With the majority being the former and the minority the latter. To what Ratio I could not begin to predict - but that would generally be my expectation at least.

There are other factors to consider too however. The relative extended life span of people has to have some bearing on this. Monogamy in our past was a much shorter term thing.

Couple that with the wider world we now have access to with our media - our communications - our cheap travel.

So as time is going on life is becoming a more varied - elongated - journey and is putting pressure on a "life long" commitment to marriage that otherwise used to be a relatively simple one. People in our current culture are more and more able to access this idea that there is more to life than the old marry-reproduce-die narrative that biology might have had in store for us.

valoren wrote: »

You say that friends and family would not be pleased? What give's them the right to be so judgemental on your life choices?

Alas whether we like it or not - people do judge. And most often they do so when you break with the narrative that everyone else adheres to in their own lives.

Look - as a random example - at the threads on the forum about people not wanting to have children. Or look - as a second example - at threads about people who have stopped drinking when they go out with their mates.

I have long suspected the root of this is that people see a break from the narrative they live their own life by - as a judgement of that narrative and life style. So often people do not think "Oh so they do not want children" they think something more like "Well whats so wrong with having children? What are they saying about ME?" or "Oh look at him not drinking as if that makes him better than us who do!!!"

It is a sad and sometimes even hideous human trait - but alas it is a common enough one.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 01-03-2016 03:59PM

Walter H Price wrote: »

Religion has played a huge role in the construct of monogamy among some Human Society , however Arabic society and Mormons are closer to our true Ape like instincts with family groups made up of an Alfa Male and a number of females i.e polygamy.

I'd argue that capitalism actually has a lot more to do with it in reality than religion. Religion is usually used as the justification, but monogamy makes taxation, inheritance, insurance, liability for loans and so on run a lot more smoothly. There's a big overlap between societies which are further from the model of Western patriarchal capitalism and those which are openly non-monogamous.

Wibbs · 01-03-2016 04:01PM

I think the various animal models can fall down when applied to humans and our sexuality and mating strategies. More often than not it's as much down to researchers bias than anything. The Chimps a good example. First it was "chimps are the best analogue for humans among the great apes", then the 60's and 70's rolled in and the hippie take on nature he'd sway and the nasty brutish male chimps were swapped out for those matriarchal Bonobo and their peaceful shagging. Both analogues are nonsense. Indeed human groupings are far more like some wild dogs than great apes.

The most one can say about humans is we have tried pretty much everything. We're extremely adaptable. So is monogamy natural? Yep and so is polygamy and every other amy out there.

I would personally reckon there is a basic "mating cycle" in humans and research seems to suggest this. This cycle runs about 3-4 years. The "honeymoon period" where you're shagging like monkeys and the bonds are strong enough to go through pregnancy, birth and up until the kid is weaned onto solids. If you check out any online relationships forum(inc on Boards) you'll see a general pattern of breakups among younger folks happening at around 2-4 years, usually instigated by the women(mainly because women have generally more choices). You even see a similar pattern among your hollywood types who are less bound by financial and social considerations and have lots of choice. IIRC George Clooney used to operate a running relationship length rule of two years and byeee. In the real world and as people get older and maybe have kids this initial strong love bond is replaced by a shared love of the kids and a shared history and diminishing social and sexual choices.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 01-03-2016 04:07PM

Actually there's a cultural theorist called Robin Wood who reckoned that surplus repression was the driving impulse behind the rise of horror (and I think melodrama) films in the mid twentieth century. The thinking being that there's a healthy amount of repression required for a society to function; so we're not all running around fcuking our sisters, stealing our neighbours' shiny objects, punching people for laughing at our hair and basically acting like tall, horny, toddlers. Surplus repression then, is the degree of repression required for us to function as monogamous, heterosexual capitalists (three things he saw as fairly intertwined AFAIR). And that's why we get people so counterintuitively fascinated by horrible violent imagery and themes, it's the only outlet for transgression that they have!

He was a bit of a Marxist hippie type though, if that's not clear.

Wibbs · 01-03-2016 04:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The relative extended life span of people has to have some bearing on this. Monogamy in our past was a much shorter term thing.

You hear this a lot T, but I'm not so sure. For a start outside of the rolling plagues of the European middle ages three score and ten was an age people could at least hope to live to and hitting three score was very common. Plus people got married much younger as a general rule. Women certainly did. A woman of twenty who wasn't hitched and/or with child was more the norm than the exception, so 40 year marriages weren't that unusual. On the other hand at various times in history and culture age gaps were often large for quite a few, so widows were common too. EG Roman soldiers signed up for twenty year stints and for quite a while weren't allowed to get hitched until they retired at around 40, at which point they'd set up shop with younger women(going further back Aristotle mused that IIRC 37 for a man and 18 for a woman were a good age match). And as I said that worked as did men and women hitching up at 16 and… Very adaptable species.

Toby Yummy Banner wrote: »

Religion is usually used as the justification, but monogamy makes taxation, inheritance, insurance, liability for loans and so on run a lot more smoothly.

Very true EB. The whole "virginal women are best" largely springs from when we first laid down permanent roots and inheritance of assets became serious business. Fidelity in the hunter gatherers is still very much valued, but virginity is not, or far less so.

There's a big overlap between societies which are further from the model of Western patriarchal capitalism and those which are openly non-monogamous.

Maybe, though IMH that has been somewhat overrun by modern political and cultural perceptions. EG there are vanishingly few actual matriarchal societies and the majority that are claimed as such don't bear much scrutiny. Western patriarchal society is far more equal, some could even argue more matriarchal than any society that has preceded it.

01-03-2016 04:17PM

That would be why I said _some_ bearing. It is not going to be anywhere near to the whole picture. But at the same time the fact we are living longer over all (and I do not mean just back to the middle ages) - coupled with the fact we are healthier and more active during that period too - has to have _some_ bearing on things somewhere. Also there is a difference between "An age they could hope to live to" and how many people statistically actually _are_ doing so compared to 50 years - 250 years - 500 years - 2000 years ago.

Figures I alas do not have but a random google result would be "The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. In 1998, it is 76. However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties."

How much of a bearing and in how many people - is anyone's guess. I would not know.

Do you think that monogamy is a social construct?

Comments