Why monogamy??

[applepie]

I think it'd be interesting to explore why people are faithful.

I think Fifth hit on an interesting point here. I tend to view almost any reason for cheating an excuse, but then I would castrate my husband (sorry guys) if I found him with another woman. That would destroy me on more levels than I can imagine.

Anyway, I know why I abhor cheating, but why do couples remain faithful? You can always give the whole song and dance about loving one another, but then there are nights like I'm having where you've just had a spat with your spouse and you certainly don't like them at the moment. Why don't most of us cheat when it would be much easier than dealing with marriage and commitment? Seriously, if you've never been married or in a long term relationship... it is hard folks. Making things work out takes more work on both sides than I ever would have imagined as a younger person. So why do we make the conscious choice to do it?

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess for that to be answered, one would have to consider whether God is a factor or not. If you ask me as one who believes in God as the Creator according to the biblical writings, then I can give an in depth answer. If you don't believe in God, then I have no clue. I surely wouldn't care about making a committed relationship. I would do whatever would benefit me the most.

[Virgil]

why do couples remain faithful? ...So why do we make the conscious choice to do it?

The threat of a massive divorce settlement and having her take everything you own. :p :p :p

[applepie]

The threat of a massive divorce settlement and having her take everything you own. :p :p :p

:lol:I doubt I would get too much :D

Bien, for me God does play a part in things, but I would be lying if I said that that was the entire reason.

[*Classic*Charm*]

If you don't believe in God, then I have no clue. I surely wouldn't care about making a committed relationship. I would do whatever would benefit me the most.

I find this utterly insulting. I'm really not trying to make this a discussion about faith, but I'm absolutely furious about this.

It feels as though you're saying that unless one believes in God, one is purely selfish, and therefore has no interest in committing to another.

Tell me if I'm right before I continue. Because I'm about to lose my mind.

[BienvenuJDC]

I find this utterly insulting. I'm really not trying to make this a discussion about faith, but I'm absolutely furious about this.

It feels as though you're saying that unless one believes in God, one is purely selfish, and therefore has no interest in committing to another.

Tell me if I'm right before I continue. Because I'm about to lose my mind.

I am sorry. I did not make myself clear. From my point of view, I would have a completely different outlook if it wasn't for my faith. What I am trying to say is...

I have an answer if we are discussing this in according to a belief in God. If we are not taking into consideration an existence of God, then I don't know how to approach the discussion.

Do not make that conclusion from my statement. I did not mean that by any means.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I am sorry. I did not make myself clear. From my point of view, I would have a completely different outlook if it wasn't for my faith. What I am trying to say is...

I have an answer if we are discussing this in according to a belief in God. If we are not taking into consideration an existence of God, then I don't know how to approach the discussion.

Do not make that conclusion from my statement. I did not mean that by any means.

No need to apologize, you didn't do it on purpose. I suppose it was this rather concrete statement that led to my conclusion:


I surely wouldn't care about making a committed relationship. I would do whatever would benefit me the most. That makes it sound as though you know exactly how you would approach the discussion from that point of view. Either way...

My question is this: how do you know you would have a completely different outlook?

I'm not claiming monogamy is right or not, I'm simply speculating from the perspective of one who practices it.

Is the nature and goodness of monogamy found intrinsically or is the only value in monogamy that it has been dictated as being correct?

What does your faith teach you about love and monogamy? I suspect it teaches you the same basic principles followed by most people who are raised without a particular faith or by those who have deviated from the faith in which they were raised.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well, jealousy is pretty intense. Monogamy might happen because we know what jealousy feels like, and we know what might happen to us if our partner gets jealous (best case scenario, we seriously hurt someone that we love; worst case, we end up dead or dismembered).

[Lokasenna]

I think it must be something cultural as well - we talk of monogamy as the default setting, but there are numerous societies where polygamy is openly practised and totally accepted as normal.

I would say that in the case of a standard, Western style monogamous relationship, the reason people are generally faithful is beacuse of the sheer emotional investment in the realtionship. It's not just about the sex - its the intimacy of your existences. If, as I believe, sex is the ultimate declaration of love, then if your partner does it with someone else it suggests that they don't love you as much as they should, and thus your relationship cannot work.

[Dodo25]

I could again talk about oxytocin and love, but I think we had that already, so different approach.

"Do good to seem good".

It's about image. Being trustworthy ensures that others trust you. It's a good feeling if you can say you trust someone. It adds to the relationship, you know where you're at, feel secure etc.

And it's definitely a cultural thing too.
Faitfhulness has been declared a virtue by society. Hence we want to be faithful.

[sixsmith]

For mine, monogamy is neither necessarily indicative of, nor an essential component of, love. Sex can be an act of love but it does not have to be. If two (or more I suppose) people love each other exclusively and yet can both separate sex from that love, then monogamy is possibly redundant for them.

In my opinion, sexual infidelity is simply one way in which a person can breach the trust that another has placed in them. People enter a relationship in which it is understood that the they will only sleep with each other. When that trust is broken, it's difficult to recapture it.

[hack]

Monogamy may have come to us, as a species or maybe sooner, when we were able to find a deep spiritual connection to the ideal of perfect love, and set it as a goal. I expect that the percentage of people who are monogamous throughout their lifetimes is relatively small. This may be some indication that monogamy is more an ideal than an easily achieved reality. It is anathema to the idea of the selfish gene, that procreation is THE overarching goal. Genghis Khan, by some accounts has 12 million living descendants, after all!
Love does lead to oxytocin production. It also brings a myriad of other physical and biochemical benefits. These are bestowed on the living recipient and presumably also on the beacon of love. The coming generations being left to the easily broken chains of love that may, or may not, follow the the evolutionary molecular descent.

[ktm5124]

Because monogamy gives two people a claim to each other. It is a both a conquest and a surrender. I think this balance is what makes it beautiful.

[applepie]

Because monogamy gives two people a claim to each other. It is a both a conquest and a surrender. I think this balance is what makes it beautiful.

That is one of the more interesting answers :)

So, monogamy meets this desire we have to "own" things? Not saying that marriage or being an exclusive couple is ownership really, but it kind of is. I'll pull them later when I have a moment, but take a look at marriage vows. You are unconditionally gifting yourself upon another for the gift of themselves. I guess it is a bit like ownership :lol:

[ktm5124]

Yes. It is selfish in that you acquire some ownership of your partner; selfless and sacrificing in that, at the same time, you give them some ownership over yourself.

Without these dual, competing aspects I do not think marriage would be a healthy commitment. It is only a contract in that it is not completely self-sacrificing, nor completely self-serving, but a balance of the two.

In polygamy you do not get this same claim to another. Similarly, if your partner proves unfaithful, the claim becomes a fiction.

[ktm5124]

So, monogamy meets this desire we have to "own" things? Not saying that marriage or being an exclusive couple is ownership really, but it kind of is. I'll pull them later when I have a moment, but take a look at marriage vows. You are unconditionally gifting yourself upon another for the gift of themselves. I guess it is a bit like ownership :lol:

But the ownership is not ownership in the sense that we generally think of it. It is not the bourgeois ownership of factory workers. It is the ability to depend on the fact that your partner will be there for you, meet your needs. In the same way that your parents once did for you, except here you must equally reciprocate. It is certainly a kind of ownership, but not repulsive like many others. I think more specific than our desire to own things, it meets our need to have someone whom we can unconditionally depend on. This need is programmed into us in that we grow accustomed to it in our upbringing, in having parents who care more for us than any other.

It would be interesting to explore the needs of people who grew up with bad parents, or no parents - who had no one to unconditionally love them. Is the search for unconditional love an instinctual need or a learned behavior?

[Indyben]

Monogomy does not mean anybody "owns" anyone. Monogomy just means to be with a person for the rest of your life because you love them. If two people truly believe their lives are meant to be intertwined, then it's a beautiful thing. Even if they don't cheating is not an option. You either discuss it, get counselling, or break up. Cheating is never acceptable. I would never forgive anyone if they cheated on me, nor would I forgive myself if I was stupid enough to cheat on a person. It's just wrong.

[Joreads]

I find this utterly insulting. I'm really not trying to make this a discussion about faith, but I'm absolutely furious about this.

It feels as though you're saying that unless one believes in God, one is purely selfish, and therefore has no interest in committing to another.

Tell me if I'm right before I continue. Because I'm about to lose my mind.

Charm I agree 100% with you on this one

OK should have read on before posting.

I asked my partner about this question and he said we belong to each other and it would be a breach of trust that there is no going back from.

[blazeofglory]

Isn't monogamy a myth? We are in public honest, monogamists, trustworthy and the like. But once again think honestly and write honestly, un-layering your natural states, instincts and impulses you are polygamists. But you are told to lie and this is the truth we love to obscure

[dizzydoll]

Out of simple respect.

[Dodo25]

Out of simple respect.

Yeah, that's about it.

[Cunninglinguist]

It seems like the general consensus is that monogamy is some sort of contract between two parties. But Socrates pointed out that when one enters into a “social contract” if one could break that contract and surely evade detection one would (see Ring of Gyges). In the Republic two of Socrates interlocutors, Glaucon and Adeimantus, present the myth of Gyges' ring, by which Gyges made himself invisible. They inquire to Socrates, if one ascertained the ring, why should he act morally? Socrates replies that even if no one can see one's physical appearance, the soul is disfigured by the evils one commits. This disfigured and corrupt soul is imbalanced and disordered, and in itself undesirable regardless of other benefits of acting amorally. A lovely tribute to this idea is Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray.

I would like to think that a similar thing happens to those who are unfaithful but evade detection. Monogamy combined with true love gives two people more than just an agreement but also cultivates ones sanity (maybe we can call this spiritual beauty), i.e. facilitates moral growth; whereas polygamy, wantonness, etc. do not; warmth towards the promiscuous only cultivates the rot in their already spoiled hearts.
I’m not sure if this answers anything, opens up any new doors for inquiry, or, more likely, just obscures the matter. Take it with a grain of salt.

I'm not at much liberty to talk about relationships, as I am still very young, and I dont really intend on getting married.

[dizzydoll]

I'm not at much liberty to talk about relationships, as I am still very young, and I dont really intend on getting married.

Me too. lol. Welcome to the club.
http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_26.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

Marriage is overrated anyway... lol. Its so funny no-one will believe me, till its too late!

[Indyben]

Me too. lol. Welcome to the club.
http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_26.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

Marriage is overrated anyway... lol. Its so funny no-one will believe me, till its too late!

Overrated? My mum and dad have been together since they were 15, and they got married when they were 20. They have spent the last 33 years of their life together and I've never seen anyone happier. I'm not having a go at you, I just don't see how being with the one you love more than your own life for the rest of your life can be overrated.

[Dodo25]

Monogamy combined with true love gives two people more than just an agreement but also cultivates ones sanity (maybe we can call this spiritual beauty), i.e. facilitates moral growth; whereas polygamy, wantonness, etc. do not; warmth towards the promiscuous only cultivates the rot in their already spoiled hearts.

I know what you mean, and in some way I even agree with you. But the way you phrase it, it isn't really an explanation (to me?) because you use ill-defined terminology like 'true love' or 'spiritual beauty'. What are these and do they even exist?

It is very hard to put it in words. As I said I agree with your basic statement, which presents an excellent insight. Here's my attempt to phrase it, altough I must admit I'm not completely happy with it:

By remaining faithful, even in the case of temptation, one creates something to live for: call it 'true love' if you want. Before, it is a feeling (with biological reasons); if you elevate it, and say practise monogamy, (partially) 'against' the own nature, because of it, then it becomes, (only) in our minds, more than that. It makes us feel moral, virtuous and as a consequence: happy.

[dizzydoll]

Overrated? My mum and dad have been together since they were 15, and they got married when they were 20. They have spent the last 33 years of their life together and I've never seen anyone happier. I'm not having a go at you, I just don't see how being with the one you love more than your own life for the rest of your life can be overrated.

Yes, I knew my comment would pick up flack. Your mum and I just have a different point of view. lol

[Indyben]

Yes, I knew my comment would pick up flack. Your mum and I just have a different point of view.

Fair nuff. I didn't mean my response as flack I promise.

[dizzydoll]

http://serve.mysmiley.net/love/love0038.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

[Indyben]

http://serve.mysmiley.net/love/love0038.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

O.O...lol...o...kayyyyy.

[Cunninglinguist]

I know what you mean, and in some way I even agree with you. But the way you phrase it, it isn't really an explanation (to me?) because you use ill-defined terminology like 'true love' or 'spiritual beauty'. What are these and do they even exist?

It is very hard to put it in words. As I said I agree with your basic statement, which presents an excellent insight. Here's my attempt to phrase it, altough I must admit I'm not completely happy with it:

By remaining faithful, even in the case of temptation, one creates something to live for: call it 'true love' if you want. Before, it is a feeling (with biological reasons); if you elevate it, and say practise monogamy, (partially) 'against' the own nature, because of it, then it becomes, (only) in our minds, more than that. It makes us feel moral, virtuous and as a consequence: happy.

Hehe, yeah, I'm running on fumes. Havent been to sleep in like 23 hours. I kind of feel like Hegel now, leaving the reader to make any meaning out of my words. Be my guest at rewording. :santasmil:santasmil:santasmil:santasmil

[Dodo25]

I kind of feel like Hegel now, leaving the reader to make any meaning out of my words.

Haha that's an interesting comparison. I have read summaries of Hegel and reacted the very same way I did to your comment;) I think he says some great things but phrases them them in an undefined, weird way.

I'm not saying my way of expressing it is better, to many people, your comment is probably much easier to understand than mine, because these metaphores or concepts are commonly used (another example would be 'soul') and people think in terms of them. They should be questioned though, as should any other concepts and ideas, that's why I insist on describing things rationally and 'scientifically'.

I have the same problem with most of philosophy actually (definitely everything before Darwin). Plato for example also said a lot of good things, but his imagination was ridden with wrong concepts such as 'ideas' or 'essences'. Then there are those like Heidegger that I can't even read, because all they do is use obscure terminology all the time, trying to sound smart.. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to get it..

[Indyben]

I am 17 years old-and I have a strong belief in monogamy. I would never cheat on my girlfriend because I love her more than anything. That's all monogamy is. A display of the unconditional love one human being has for another.

[dafydd manton]

You can argue black's white, but monogamy suits some people, myself included. I don't look upon my wife as a "possession", but as being the companion I chose to go through life with. It's all very well to quote Socrates (who was hardly a paragon of virtue, therefore irrelevant), but I'm prepared to take a bet that if anybody has ever entered into marriage and found out that their partner is playing the field, they will be EXTREMELY unhappy. Moral: try not to make the person you PROMISED to take on for life unhappy.

[Indyben]

I think that most of the inconceptions about the morality/philosophy of monogamy comes from the belief that it condones people as "possessions"

A person can not materially "own" another person. But I can say that my girl does own me one way or another but I have willingly given myself to her. I'm not her possession, I'm her partner and therefore she owns me, because I gave myself to her.

[Buh4Bee]

Why stay married if you are miserable? Is this what we are really talking about?

Two incomes is better than one, health care, a house...

You lose a lot if you cheat, get caught, and divorce.

Is it really worth it for a roll in the hay? Nay I say!

[El Viejo]

Everything can be used as a tool or a weapon. Monogamy is generally perceived as a beautiful thing, a commitment of two souls to one another, a bastion against life's storms. It can also be a trap, a form of enslavement. The former springs from the heart, for lack of a better term, and the latter is effected by the rules and regulations that have sprung up around the idea. Historically monogamy has been closer to the latter. Marriages were arranged, women and dowries bartered, wives were chattel. Marriage cemented alliances and ensured, to an extent, that a man was not raising some other man's children. I expect the hearts and flowers view is a relatively recent development. I like it better, myself.

I'm monogamous because it's a good way, as one writer here said, to manage jealousy. I could be ok with having a harem, but not with being part of one. Not a fair or balanced attitude.


Why stay married if you are miserable? Is this what we are really talking about?

Two incomes is better than one, health care, a house...

You lose a lot if you cheat, get caught, and divorce.

Is it really worth it for a roll in the hay? Nay I say!

Two words. Stolen watermelon.

We're designed to be able to carry on should we lose our partner, and the mechanism doesn't shut down just because we're in a relationship.

Suppose someone who raises your pulse gave you the eye, and you had the opportunity, and were pretty sure you wouldn't get caught, what would you do?

Probably stick to your principals.

But suppose it's a co-worker? It's going to happen again. Then again. And again.

It'll take more than resolve and commitment. You're going to need to manage your interactions (i.e. limit them), and maybe involve your spouse (e.g. don't attend the Christmas party alone).

[Romantique]

In my country a song says, 'I can't love two persons because I don't have two hearts.' So I agree with everything you said.

[Pensive]

I feel it's all about emotional attachment and most of all commitment.

[JuniperWoolf]

I do consider myself pretty open minded in the realm of relationship make-up, but I’ll be honest: all of the talk in this thread about "possession" and "conquest" and "image" does make me feel kind of ill. If your partner is very uncomfortable with the idea of you having a physical relationship with someone else, then what's wrong with just not sleeping around because you care about your partner and don't want them to suffer? Some people don’t mind, and that’s okay for them (like when we had the girl on the “personal and anonymous” thread who was in a relationship with two men and they were all okay with the situation, that’s fine because they all know the terms and accept it). If you like someone, then you don’t want them to feel bad. If having sex with another person will make them feel bad, then you should feel guilt at the idea of doing so (and if you don’t, then I don’t see how you could love your partner).

You've got to be honest with yourself and each other in order for this to work though, and accept the fact that both of you are going to be attracted to other people, and you're also both going to admire other people on an intellectual and emotional level. I think it's a good idea to be cool with that. Dave and I half-jokingly check out other people together all the time, and we think it‘s fun. It‘s also honest. If you get jealous every time your mate's jaw drops at someone else, and you expect their sexuality and admiration towards other human beings to just switch off now that they're with you, you're both going to have a bad time.


But suppose it's a co-worker? It's going to happen again. Then again. And again.

Aww, it doesn’t have to. I’ve had coworkers that I had crushes on and been alone with a lot (working at the ol‘ video store), and it’s fun to play that little flirtation game of tag, but I’ve never attacked them like an animal in heat.

[Revolte]

You've got to be honest with yourself and each other in order for this to work though, and accept the fact that both of you are going to be attracted to other people, and you're also both going to admire other people on an intellectual and emotional level. I think it's a good idea to be cool with that. Dave and I half-jokingly check out other people together all the time, and we think it‘s fun. It‘s also honest. If you get jealous every time your mate's jaw drops at someone else, and you expect their sexuality and admiration towards other human beings to just switch off now that they're with you, you're both going to have a bad time.


says it all.

[El Viejo]

Aww, it doesn’t have to. I’ve had coworkers that I had crushes on and been alone with a lot (working at the ol‘ video store), and it’s fun to play that little flirtation game of tag, but I’ve never attacked them like an animal in heat.

To paraphrase Billy Crystal, generally speaking women need a reason to have sex whereas men merely need an opportunity.

Speaking personally, I'm too old to give a rodent's behind anymore. But not so long ago I was somewhere in between. I could resist, but could probably be worn down.

If you're a man and an exception to the generality, lucky you.