Is monogamy real, or social construct that people pretend to subscribe to?

[ZombiePlatypus]

Do you think long enduring monogamous relationships are truly monogamous, or are they all touched by contained incidents of clandestine infidelities? Is dealing with cheating a certain inevitability given how we're wired as sexual beings?

I was talking to some people at a party who were in non-monogamous relationships. They gave various reasons for opting to be in open relationships. (Feeling like they can genuinely romantically love more than one person at once and have a functioning relationship built on that, romantically comitting to only one person but having the OK for sexual encounters with others, recognizing that monogamy goes against how we are wired and stifles our instincts, claims of lowered infidelities etc.)

Just to set things clear, I think people can have valid, healthy open-relationships. But, everything isn't a good fit for everyone, and I don't think I'd cope well in a non-monogamous situation. Am I just holding onto an antiquated and impossible social practice here?

EDIT - My thread title might be awkwardly worded, and misleading. I realize that monogamy is a social construct. I'm just curious whether you think/believe it's a construct that people only *pretend* to adhere to, or a construct that is certainly achievable for some relationships, without getting compromised.

 

[Stereogatari]

Social construct. I reckon marriage was initially invented in patriarchal societies to control women.

I think individuals can be monogamous as per their personalities and life philosophies but I don't think we are hard wired for it or anything.

 

[Zakalwe]

I think many people are conditioned to accept this as the way it should be when it doesn't actually suit them. It's a construct we're used to.

I personally think it's a weird thing to strive for, the "security" argument comes off as "ownership" sometimes.

Just my personal view. I don't think we're wired for it either.

 

[Aiii]

Definitely a social construct. Monogamy, marriage, being with one person for life, all things we're doing that serves no real evolutionary reason.

 

[Pankratous]

Definitely a social construct.

 

[MattKeil]

Your mind makes it real.

 

[HiredN00bs]

It's a social construct (which is evident by looking at its varying practice among differing human cultures) but it's also found in other species, so it must have biological bases as well. Our young take a long time to mature.

 

[fanboi]

I always look at the animal kingdom when asking these sort of questions.

Do they do it there? Yes? Natural evolution!

 

[Fantastapotamus]

What do you mean by "real"? It's not a naturally occurring event. Of course it's a social construct. I wouldn't even try to get in an "open-relationship" because that shits not for me, but if you and your partner are fine with it, not my problem.

 

[Fliesen]

To me, personally, it's also a case of

.

It's certainly mostly a social construct.

I do feel, however, that for many people having multiple partners would be detrimental to the relationship with each single partner, as there's always the security of having a backup, so you'll be less willing to agree on certain compromises because you'd risk losing your (single) partner.

 

[Opticability]

I always look at the animal kingdom when asking these sort of questions.

Do they do it there? Yes? Natural evolution!

That's not a good way of finding every answer. Animals rape each other all the time, doesn't mean we should allow it just because it's natural in the animal kingdom.

 

[Kain-Nosgoth]

i couldn't be in an open relationship, not because i'm against it, but because i woudln't be able to find other partners, so i would be pretty jealous of my partner that she's the only one to have fun 8)

 

[spekkeh]

Everything social in human interactions is a social construct when you think about it, because we have the ability to self reflect and act teleologically. However, that also makes it that it's certainly not impossible, and clandestine infidelities not to be accepted outright. We can think about cheating all the time, to do it is another.

Biologically, I'd say our sexual dimorphism and the size of the male testes, would indicate ancient humans preferred clusters of one male and a few females.

 

[Dryk]

It varies from person to person. The problematic social construct is more the rigid adherence to monogamy as an ideal preventing people from exploring other options they may be better suited to more than anything.

 

[SPCTRE]

EDIT - My thread title might be awkwardly worded, and misleading. I realize that monogamy is a social construct. I'm just curious whether you think/believe it's a construct that people only *pretend* to adhere to, or a construct that is certainly achievable for some relationships, without getting compromised.

As a lot of people have said and you've conceded, it absolutely is a social construct. 100%.

And yes, it absolutely is - empirically - achievable for people.

It's not for everyone, sure, but then again, what is?

 

[HiredN00bs]

That's not a good way of finding every answer. Animals rape each other all the time, doesn't mean we should allow it just because it's natural in the animal kingdom.

I don't think their point is to say that whether something occurs because of biological evolution is a determination on its moral worth, just that looking at other species is an easy litmus test for whether some human behavior is potentially influenced by biological evolution.

 

[SolidusDave]

Scarlett Johansson said monogamy forever isn't natural.
I'm going with that then.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Robots, we are robots

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I think people are naturally too petty and selfish for serious polyamorie to work. Monogamy doesn't have a great track record either though.

Monogamy does have social advantages though, having kids is a tough job for almost 2 decade. Putting that responsibility on a single person is almost unbearable.

I always look at the animal kingdom when asking these sort of questions.

Do they do it there? Yes? Natural evolution!

Almost any sort of bird is monogamous, some of which for life.

 

[JimmyRustler]

That's not a good way of finding every answer. Animals rape each other all the time, doesn't mean we should allow it just because it's natural in the animal kingdom.

Comparisons to the animals are stupid anyway because people in general only use it when it suits them. Just like when someone justifies something because it's "natural". Gimme a break.

 

[Zakalwe]

i couldn't be in an open relationship, not because i'm against it, but because i woudln't be able to find other partners, so i would be pretty jealous of my partner that she's the only one to have fun 8)

It's not always about "having fun", it's often about making more than one meaningful romantic connection at once.

It can be about the "fun" too, though.

The girl I'm in an open relationship with wants to explore her sexuality. She was asexual until her mid 20s, and was with the same guy for the few years. She's only been with three people - including me - and ahe wants to explore what she missed.

She also has a sexual relationship/friendship with her ex, who she visits once or twice a year.

I'm not even looking for anything else personally, tbh juggling more than one person sounds a little exhausting. She's free to do as she wishes though, and I'm very happy for her to do so. This is something important to her, not just fooling around for the sake of it. I've never understood the monogamous mentality fully, it's always seemed quite bizzare to own each other that way.

I get this isn't for everyone, though.

 

[Fallout-NL]

It's a social construct. But it's one that I do see the benefits of. It does work better for some persons than others though.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

It's a social construct for sure, but that shouldn't be necessarily taken to mean it's an inherently bad thing.

Rather, its the complex and often conflicting standards with which we understand monogamy - simply a base concept of sticking to a single romantic and/or sexual partner - as a society, and as simultaneous societies living alongside each other, that's more the issue. Where monogamy is held to be something sacrosanct, and any violation thereof is a severe crime. Simultaneously, it's held up in such an ideal that a failing relationship is often feared as a failure of the person; the result being that people do not wish to speak openly of the desire to cheat, both before and after the fact. Hell, that the word in english is 'cheat' should be telling enough of just how much presumption is baked into relationships.

A monogamous relationship can and often does work; they're also very easily set up to fail.

 

[fanboi]

That's not a good way of finding every answer. Animals rape each other all the time, doesn't mean we should allow it just because it's natural in the animal kingdom.

Well I am not saying that am I? Laws and moral code is a social construct but something that set aside us from animals.

 

[krang]

Bets on whether OP cheated and is now looking for excuses.

 

[John Kowalski]

Polygamy sounds like way too much work tbh

 

[Kain-Nosgoth]

It's not always about "having fun", it's often about making more than one meaningful romantic connection at once.

It can be about the "fun" too, though.

The girl I'm in an open relationship with wants to explore her sexuality. She was asexual until her mid 20s, and was with the same guy for the few years. She's only been with three people - including me - and ahe wants to explore what she missed.

She also has a sexual relationship/friendship with her ex, who she visits once or twice a year.

I'm not even looking for anything else personally, tbh juggling more than one person sounds a little exhausting. She's free to do as she wishes though, and I'm very happy for her to do so. This is something important to her, not just fooling around for the sake of it. I've never understood the monogamous mentality fully, it's always seemed quite bizzare to own each other that way.

I get this isn't for everyone, though.

ho sure, i know it's not only about fun, i was just making a dumb joke (this is still true in my case, i wouldn't be able to find other partners, so yeah, not for me, i don't have enough confidence to accept that she see other people while i struggle to find someone! Maybe that will change in some years)

like i said i don't have aynthing against open relationship/polygamy, people are free to do what they want, and i would maybe try it too if i had the capacity to do it

 

[MsKrisp]

Both types of relationship styles have challenges. If you choose monogamy, you're going with the socially acceptable way to love, but you have to deal with the desire to stray and having to trust your partner. I'm sure many people successfully avoid cheating, but I don't really believe their minds had never wandered to other possibilities. In open relationships there may be jealous feelings, and you have to spread out your love and attention to more than one person, which can be a huge burden. I used to romanticize open relationships, but the people I know that are into them seem to have tons of trouble with the stuff I was trying to avoid in monogamy.

 

[zoukka]

It's a very useful and efficient social construct.

Sadly many people feel pressured to pursue without realizing they are not ready for it.

 

[RMI]

Social construct, but I don't see that as inherently bad.

 

[Kthulhu]

It's a social construct IMO.

I personally have no interest in more than one partner (at least in the long term) but I wish those in non-monogamous relationships the best.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Definitely a social construct. Monogamy, marriage, being with one person for life, all things we're doing that serves no real evolutionary reason.

Actually they do serve a purpose, though I don't have a link right now.

 

[Chuck Norris]

I think we would see a lot more petty violence in the world without monogamy

It is definitely a social construct, but jealousy is an incredibly real thing and if you think patriarchy is bad in a monogamous society, I think it would be much worse in a polygamous society. Simply put, males with money, power or physical advantage would have harems of women and society would naturally transition to a system of men having multiple partners and women to one man

 

[nded]

Yes, monogamy is a thing that exists in nature. Yes, it is a social construct insofar as it is practiced by humans who have little to no biological motivation for it. No, people aren't only pretending to subscribe to it anymore than people are only pretending to agree that murder, another social construct, is wrong. Obviously some individuals are shitheads, but I don't think human civilization would have gotten very far if people only ever paid lip service to social constructs.

 

[Skii]

Definitely a social construct. Monogamy, marriage, being with one person for life, all things we're doing that serves no real evolutionary reason.

It definitely serves evolutionary reason.

 

[Khaz]

Monogamy definitely isn't a social construct. Love and jealousy are here to remind us that we want to be with only one person, and that that person shouldn't be with someone else. Being in a couple isn't specific to the human species either. The evolutionary advantage being that both are assured to pass their genes and breed their own, and that there is someone else who has the same fervour in making sure the child reaches the adult age.

 

[Chumly]

Monogamy is what most people would naturally go towards. It serves a purpose and works in the modern world.

 

[Breakage]

In the long run it is better for the planet and society.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Social constructs don't have to be necessary bad or going against what people think is natural.

You are supposed to shit and piss as soon as you feel the urge (nature), but you won't just pull down your pants and shit on the street (social construct)

Personally I couldn't be in an open relationship, whoever can, good for you just don't try and persuade me into it because you think it's better.

 

[neorej]

I think it's a little bit of both. I think couples can live a truly monogamous relationship, without any love or lust for anyone outside their significant other. On the other hand, I also think there are couples who are polygamous, either in love or lust or both, and happy that way. I think it's part of your sexual identity, and it's a shame we live in a society where monogamy is being upheld as the standard, and polygamy is considered a taboo.

 

[Triteon]

Its a social construct. But its a social construct almost as old agriculture. I dont know how to envision society without a priority on coupledom.

 

[Eumi]

It's a social construct, but like, that doesn't mean it isn't real?

 

[Triteon]

Monogamy definitely isn't a social construct. Love and jealousy are here to remind us that we want to be with only one person, and that that person shouldn't be with someone else. Being in a couple isn't specific to the human species either. The evolutionary advantage being that both are assured to pass their genes and breed their own, and that there is someone else who has the same fervour in making sure the child reaches the adult age.

But check the size and shape of our dicks though.

 

[Anjelus_]

You're going to have to define what in the world a "social construct" even is and how disparate prehistoric societies from every continent, from Mexico to Australia, could have invented the same "social construct" we now call marriage.

Color me deeply skeptical of this question & the way it's framed here.

 

[Already Torn]

Animals can do it so its real enough

 

[Kthulhu]

But check the size and shape of our dicks though.

My dick wouldn't be this big if it wasn't meant to be shared.

Animals can do it so its real enough

Not really a fair comparison. Some species mate for life, some kill their partners, some mate once and then leave, and some have multiple partners at once.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Not really a fair comparison. Some species mate for life, some kill their partners, some mate once and then leave, and some have multiple partners at once.

And we humans do all of that!
TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN MOTHERFUCKERS

 

[Aiii]

Actually they do serve a purpose, though I don't have a link right now.

It definitely serves evolutionary reason.

I'll concede that monogamy serves a benefit for a short period of time during the mating period and perhaps even through infancy of the offspring, but one single mate for life has no real purpose.

 

[Triteon]

My dick wouldn't be this big if it wasn't meant to be shared.

Well more along the lines that our size is in line with mammals that have multiple partners and the shape is for sperm competition.

But yea as a species you're fucking hung bro.

 

[Skellig Gra]

It's absolutely achievable and beneficial. What isn't beneficial is all these people putting pressure on people to get married when they shouldn't. It seems like our generation is slowly moving away from that and getting married/having kids later in life.