• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose like anything it's social, but also recall it does occur in nature, so maybe both.

Don't think about it much personally, I'm an adherent of monogamy though.
 
Teggy said:
So here's a question - is jealousy and emotional pain on being cheated on something that comes naturally or a conditioned response based on social constructs (serious question, I don't know the answer).
Click to expand...
Asking the real questions here... I think that monogamy is indeed real to a certain degree. It makes sense that both male and female bond for a longer period of time to protect their offspring.

Otherwise you'd have to argue that both monogamy and the jealousy in case of a betrayal are a social construct, which is pretty far fetched in my opinion.
 
WhateverItTakes said:
I dunno about as bad, but it's incredibly frustrating when people act superior that aspects of their life are none-traditional and simply conclude the world just isn't as woke as they are. I can be a bit insecure so needling comments that seek to demean my worldview irritate the hell outta me. Something I'm working on.

That same insecurity is why I figure monogamy is probably my thing. I think it's pretty cool when people manage to open things up with little friction though!
Click to expand...
Look at the people from the OP from a different perspective, you can turn the argument easily against them: they seem to be unable to control their urges to not fuck other people and their excuse is, "its unnatural" to control and resist urges. I mean good for them but their point of view is nowhere near superior to others as they believe it is, I'd rather control my urges and emotions as I believe I am a better person for myself when I control them, not the other way around.
 
Seirith said:
In my personal opinion, open relationships are just so you can cheat on each other with "permission". Fine, if you want to do it, doesn't hurt me any but totally not my thing and I would never be ok with it.
Click to expand...
What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you have permission it's not cheating.
 
Social constructs are real. If our biology didnt supported a social construct on the psychological level, it would not become a social construct.

I mean, people looking at monkeys to decide if a behavior is natural to humans cmon, humans do it therefore humans do it.
 
I think the idea that we should try to be monogamous and that monogamy is the only path is a social construct.

But I think it's fair to say that loads of us are monogamous, and I think it occurring in nature supports that. If people want to have open relationships, and all parties are okay with that, then I have zero objections to that.

But I don't look at other women as potential sexual partners now that I'm happily married. My 'needs' are more than satisfied, so I'm not looking anywhere else to get them satisfied.

I'm sure that sounds like seven kinds of bullshit to people who don't find their needs can be met by one partner. But it's not.
 
plagiarize said:
But I don't look at other women as potential sexual partners now that I'm happily married. My 'needs' are more than satisfied, so I'm not looking anywhere else to get them satisfied.

I'm sure that sounds like seven kinds of bullshit to people who don't find their needs can be met by one partner. But it's not.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of the friction between the groups stems from each an inability for each of them to comprehend the other's nature.
 
Anjelus_ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think most of the people here know what they are talking about.

It's not a social construct at all. Marriage is.. but choosing one mate at a time is obviously something ingrained into us, not that we always follow that. We aren't naturally poly by rule.
 
TheExorzist said:
Asking the real questions here... I think that monogamy is indeed real to a certain degree. It makes sense that both male and female bond for a longer period of time to protect their offspring.

Otherwise you'd have to argue that both monogamy and the jealousy in case of a betrayal are a social construct, which is pretty far fetched in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Yeah, this is basically my view, too.

Monogamy is a social construct that arises in societies as a response to natural impulses (jealousy, love, bonding), and those natural impulses have evolutionary benefits.

A pair bonded couple is a good way to raise offspring, and making that partnership a long term thing, with multiple children, is a fairly practical way to do things.
 
Biology dont deal with "should". We have biological impulse to enforce our will onto others (which is what "everyone should" means), but nature is just a basic empirically verifiable matter of "does it happen?"

If it does, then it does. "unnatural" is always a metaphor.

Also, biology is more modular than people is giving credit here, it is entirely possible that some people tend to monogamy while others dont, this is exactly how we understand homosexuality: people are wired different.
 
HiredN00bs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep.

It's annoying when people throw out "social construct" like something isn't "real" if it is one, anyhow. When people decry the state of the world and insist it should be like X instead, they're usually ignoring the reasons things have evolved over time to where they are now.

Aside from pretty universal benefits to monogamy regarding raising offspring successfully, there were a lot of practical reasons behind a lot of ancient humanity's societies. Especially in an era of no effective birth control and inability to accurately judge paternity, adultery had far more serious consequences than today. Society reflected that, the same with how marriage was a powerful tool for cementing relationships versus marriage for love's own sake. Times have changed, and it's always worth re-appraising whether those traditions still hold value in the modern world, but acting like they are random and inexplicable 'cause "society!" ignores the reality that we as a people aren't any more intelligent or evolved than our predecessors of a hundred or a thousand years.
 
Seirith said:
In my personal opinion, open relationships are just so you can cheat on each other with "permission". Fine, if you want to do it, doesn't hurt me any but totally not my thing and I would never be ok with it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's totally fine to want a monogamous relationship, but this is just a pessimistic, judgemental view. Having an open relationship and cheating are not the same, they are not interchangeable. Having a true, meaningful open relationship isn't some sexual free for all like people assume for whatever reason. Just like rules that people have in monogamous relations, there are boundary and rules that people follow. Some couples want their partner to always disclose who they slept with, some people don't care to know as long as you're being safe. Some people never have sex with other people in their homes, etc. etc. When people break those rules, people still see that as a betrayal. You can still cheat in an open relationship. People who don't set boundaries are asking for trouble, at some point you need to ask yourself if you're truly in a relationship or are you just fuck buddies.

That being said open relationships also depend on the people involved. Its not something that will work for some couples.
 
Of course its real. Social construct notwithstanding, aren't there species of other mammals that are monogamous till death. Wolves and beavers and such.
 
Hellraizer said:
Look at the people from the OP from a different perspective, you can turn the argument easily against them: they seem to be unable to control their urges to not fuck other people and their excuse is, "its unnatural" to control and resist urges. I mean good for them but their point of view is nowhere near superior to others as they believe it is, I'd rather control my urges and emotions as I believe I am a better person for myself when I control them, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I'd just rather there not be an argument at all really! Just let me do my shit, you do your shit, and if either of us are having problems, we can be like 'Hey, well this works for me...'

Maybe it's pure insecurity talking, but I see this a lot, where people try to justify their life to themselves by putting down how other people live, where really we just need the confidence to say 'I like this and I'm gonna keep doing it!'. Shit is hard though so these arguments keep running in circles.
 
Testicular Sound Express said:
I think its a construct. I am a gay male and open relationships are much more common with gay couples I feel. Some people criticize their relationship at times, but honestly they are much happier than most of my friends in relationships. Their open relationship isn't some sexual free for all like people assume for whatever reason. There are boundary and rules they follow, but they definitely sleep with other people.

That being said open relationships also depend on the people involves. Its not something that will work for some couples.
Click to expand...
People not being happy in their relationships these days is hardly an indicator that monogamy is a social construct...
 
It's a made up social construct, because societies where only a couple of alpha males have sex with all the desirable women are not as productive as societies where every man has a chance to have regular sex with a woman.
 
Anjelus_ said:
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.
Click to expand...

social construct is basically giving up a natural freedom to adhere to a "superior" politically or societal driven power of choice. You have a natural ability to be with any mate at any time. Looking at it from society's eyes, you should only be with one at a time. so if we look at your argument and examine other counties, it is in fact very plausible that marriage was constructed within their countries as well.
 
I think it's a social construct, honestly.

Based on how a lot of the world is set up (monogamy) our entire culture has normalized that decision to the point of polygamy (how our ancestors probably functioned: everyone fucking everyone but maybe having favorites) being frowned upon and hard to make function.

The expectation is that you find a single mate, breed early, and just stay with each other... forever. Even when the breeding and initial child-handling is over.

Now, in a hunter gatherer or nomadic society that makes zero sense: there isn't an evolutionary benefit for limiting the amount of genetic diversity in your tribe.

Today a child costs money, not raw resources. It makes sense today that both parents would need to stick around to raise the child (not hating on single parent households) and marriage is a religious construct on top of all that.

Now, I don't personally believe strongly one way or the other in a post-life so anything with a basis in religion or people in the past making binding contractual decisions to manage adulterous behavior or for economic or political reasons. The problem with marriage is that it's like being in a relationship except it's extra hard to get out.

Also, we have so much shit. Like physical stuff that we own. That's not a problem that's always existed. So now if you want to break up you're losing stability, maybe half your shit, aaaand divorce is a whole thing

So lots of people stay in monogamous relationships way longer than they want to due to other pressures. I think we were designed to be sexually social creatures and our society is set up to completely repress that

My personal beef with marriage is that it puts a ton of pressure on people. If you don't get married or your marriage isn't successful, people will have lots to say about that. Also, expecting for both of you to stagnate as people sucks. But otherwise you could probably grow apart and your sexy thing is now a buisiness arrangement. Finding a cool person to shack up with would be ideal, but I wouldn't want to commit to just anyone especially before I've befriended them for awhile and really learned how they are. I also need to be hella attracted to them inside and out for me to want to be there long term

I think love is a hormonal thing more than anything else.
 
I think just about everything is a social construct, so yeah, it is. I think it's beneficial in a lot of cases. I'm sure when you're happily married with a family, the average mental health is bounds better than someone who is single.
 
Social pressure to reinforce a behavior doesn't make it less natural. It would never have developed into something common enough to eventually become a moral commandment if people didnt do it naturally.
 
It's a social construct that makes sense under the framing of child rearing and the nature of being a mammal. Mammals need to take care of their young during development; humans work together on that.
 
Personally I like the idea of monogamy. Knowing someone else can make that commitment to only you is amazing (when it's honest and works). If I could handle an open relationship I probably would, but I'm far too jealous to make that happen. I think everyone is wired differently so I'm not sure if it's simply a social construct or not. I hate how taboo open relationships seem and I think that's a major problem.
 
it's probably most useful to think of it from an evolutionary point of view.

it makes sense that males would want to impregnate as many women as possible.

it also makes sense that males would be protective of females for fear that other men would impregnate the local women before they do.

it makes sense that once impregnated, women would want a strong protector around.

now, we're an intelligent species that can override our instinctual desires. but most people are likely to have instinctual desires that work in favour of either monogamy or nonmonogamy.

my advice is to figure out what matters most to you, and bothers you the least, and find relationship(s) that suit that. everyone's different

not lustful for a variety of partners? +1 for monogamy
lustful for a variety of partners? +1 for nonmonogamy
fearful of a slightly higher risk of stds? +1 for monogamy
not fearful of a slightly higher risk of stds? +1 for nonmonogamy
jealous at the thought of your partner sleeping/being with other people? +1 for monogamy
not jealous at the thought of your partner sleeping/being with other people? +1 for nonmonogamy

though, because of societal stigma, there's probably a general -1 for nonmonogamy, but i feel like the concept is becoming more and more popular. i'm in an open relationship myself.
 
By nature, we're programmed to be monogamous for generally about as long as it takes to plant and help raise a child to an age where they can begin to take care of themselves, or have a reasonable chance of survival if the father bailed.

So if you've ever noticed even great relationships seem to self destruct at 2 or 3 years, that's probably why.
 
Not entirely analogous with this conversation but I am super suspect of any ideal that sees the natural state of humans, void of their social context, as a behavioral imperative. If polygamy is better it should not be because it's aligned with our reptilian needs, but because it improves the lives of people. To that end I am similarly suspect of arguments against monogamy because it's "unnatural", we do many things that we resolve to do intellectually which may go against our Darwinian imperatives and they can't be seen as ethically improper just because of that.
 
TheExorzist said:
People not being happy in their relationships these days is hardly an indicator that monogamy is a social construct...
Click to expand...

yes, because thats the only thing I said there. that wasn't the main point, it was just an anecdotal statement. Being in an open relationship is just as valid as a monogamous one, I don't think everyone is built to be with one person forever.
 
So many saying it is a social construct. How do you even know that? Have you studied the human brain enough?

We simply cannot know just by observing animals.
 
Monogamy is seen in the wild and there has been studies on why we're wired for it, it's for the good and betterment of our offspring.

But sleeping around for pleasure isn't seen in with other animals, we humans are the only animals that do this. Case in point, it's not as simple as looking at animals.
 
I'd say it's largely a social construct, but monogamy is found with other primates.

For me I don't think I could ever deal with an open-relationship, and that's despite only wanting something casual at the moment.
 
Jumeira said:
Monogamy is seen in the wild and there has been studies on why we're wired for it, it's for the good and betterment of our offspring.
Click to expand...

i feel like this assertion comes with the assumption that a non monogamous couple couldn't raise kids as well as a monogamous couple. why do you think so?
 
Jumeira said:
Monogamy is seen in the wild and there has been studies on why we're wired for it, it's for the good and betterment of our offspring.
Click to expand...

OK? theres also plenty of situations where the males has a group of females they mate with or the male attempts to mate as much as possible. I mean how many species can you even count (without looking at google) that keep one partner their entire lives.
 
Monogamy is real in humans- it is not just a social construct. Polygamy, is real too. But it is not the dominate modern day mode of species survival.

Human offspring have a long maturation period, making it a social necessity for either a) there be two long term parents/guardians/family members or b) have offspring be raised by a social community.

The idea of "free love" with no consequences (aka children) is promiscuity, not polygamy. In polygamy, the mates generally stay around to care for offspring. Promiscuity, genetic material is deposited/gathered, then the female is left give birth.
 
Even if it's a social construct, and it definitely is, a ton of people claim that they wouldn't be able to handle their SO not being exclusively with them. I think I fall in that category too, I don't believe monogamy is superior in any way, but that's what I'm more comfortable with.
 
StifflersMum said:
It's a made up social construct, because societies where only a couple of alpha males have sex with all the desirable women are not as productive as societies where every man has a chance to have regular sex with a woman.
Click to expand...

This. If a large percentage of the population consists of sexually frustrated incel males, shit is going down.
 
Tribes in Brazil were completely not monogamous before europeans ruined everything. Lots of different arrangements, too, from poligamy as we know it (one man to lots of wifes) to free for all everyone fuck everyone no paternity, children are the responsibility of all.

Human biology allows for lots of different behavior, all equally biological: the enviroment is what tends to solidify the culture. But again, an "unnatural" culture would not have arisen in the first place.
 
Just do what feels is right. Sexuality is emotional, not rational. But first and foremost, if you are in a commited relationship, make sure all parties involved agree to the type of relationship you desire. They may feel differently.
 
-COOLIO- said:
not sure if serious, but even if that were seen as a negative, a nonmonogamous couple of two people could raise kids together while having relationships with other people that don't take part in raising the kids.
Click to expand...

Stability. Kids need stability over a long term, whether it is from genetic parents, family, or guardians.

The is nothing that bonds a non monogamous couple over a long period of time it take a kid to grow. By that very definition, either partner can leave at any time. It not a question of ability, it the fact foundation is unstable.
 
WhateverItTakes said:
I'd just rather there not be an argument at all really! Just let me do my shit, you do your shit, and if either of us are having problems, we can be like 'Hey, well this works for me...'

Maybe it's pure insecurity talking, but I see this a lot, where people try to justify their life to themselves by putting down how other people live, where really we just need the confidence to say 'I like this and I'm gonna keep doing it!'. Shit is hard though so these arguments keep running in circles.
Click to expand...

I agree. I simply do not want to engage in such conversations as I do my thing, you do yours, and we are cool, just don't tell me my preference of monogamy isn't real, or is a worse lifestyle choice than yours. Might as well start arguing if love is real, or just a chemical reaction, or some other bs that you only come up with when drunk or high.
 
Monogamy is both real and a social construct.

At a certain basal level, everything is a social construct, as humans need meaning to understand their environment -- unlike ants -- and meaning is socially produced. However, just as the Thomas theorem states, if people defines situations as real, then they are real in their consequences. That is, monogamy is real, in that it has real consequences in shaping people's ways of living together.

Is it innate? Is there a 'monogamy' gene? I doubt it. Are there systemic reasons for monogamy being a way for humans, animals, and small life forms from Alpha Centauri to live together? Probably, just as there are many reasons against it.

Monogamy has an interesting connection with the ideal of romantic love, which itself is only a few hundred years old, requiring us to love the person we live with -- how unrealistic?! Thus, monogamy losing its centrality or the concept of love itself changing would not be surprising.
 
I can't speak for other religions but the whole origin of marriage in the Abrahamaic faiths is to control women and their sexuality. That's how out of control men are about it- in Holy books an omnipotent being who created everything in existence in the entire universe, the first thing that being does is make sure there's a sacrament where Adam has access to sex! And make sure this bond is consider super holy! And let's just make sure we sprinkle power imbalance between men/women all throughout these holy books, what a coincidence Husbands are in charge.

Jealousy is natural, monogamy isn't. It's a social construct.
 
Chococat said:
Stability. Kids need stability over a long term, whether it is from genetic parents, family, or guardians.

The is nothing that bonds a non monogamous couple over a long period of time it take a kid to grow. By that very definition, either partner can leave at any time. It not a question of ability, it the fact foundation is unstable.
Click to expand...

what bonds a monogamous couple together more than a nonmonogamous couple? a partner can leave at any time in either scenario.

in both cases you could be agreeing to a long term partnership to raise kids. it's just that in the nonmonogamous scenario you're free to sleep with, date, and/or have relationships with other people. if you feel like that inherently makes the partnership less stable, then i suppose we just fundamentally disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AI Killed My Job - stories from real people
44
1K
StreetsofBeige replied
Quality YouTube channels that deserve more viewers/subscribers.
39
658
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Greece to ban anonymity on social media, likely starting in 2027
News  2
55
810
Bojji replied
  • Poll
What's your least favorite social media platform?
Social Opinion  2
80
1K
Paasei replied
HOPE movie
|OT| Social News 
5
145
Solarstrike replied
Top Bottom