# Is Monogamy Realistic?



## Jade Tigress (Oct 29, 2009)

> *Possibilities in polyamory?*
> 
> "We found the expectation that one person should be our everything seemed unrealistic given our day and age. ... It's oddly pressuring to set up that scenario," said Mark, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, and is in a polyamorous relationship. (He asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons.)
> 
> ...





> *Monogamy's payoffs*
> 
> Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia.
> 
> ...


Article. 

It was interesting to read how people in other countries view monogamy. (Hey Xue, Finland was mentioned. ) 

Thoughts?


----------



## harlan (Oct 29, 2009)

It's called 'commitment'. Whatever the boundaries of that contract are to the people involved.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2009)

Monogamy works for me.  I have no opinion of how others choose to live their lives.


----------



## Stac3y (Oct 29, 2009)

I barely have time to maintain the one relationship.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 29, 2009)

What others do is their business.
Monogamy works for me. It's also the only practical and realistic way to live together in the long run, imo. 

It is also a matter of responsibility and authority. In a polygamic relationship, whose kids are parented by whom? And what about legal power of attorney etc. The list of practical issues is enormous.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2009)

Another comment - this one more 'practical' than moral or ethical.  A polygamous relationship tends to be economically superior to a traditional relationship with one or (more often these days) two adult income-earners.  In common with social structures such as a kibbutz, multiple adult wage-earners for a single familial structure tends to concentrate wealth in a powerful way.

Nothing to do with the right or wrong of it, but from a pure economic standpoint, polygamy with multiple spouses earning wages is dynamite.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another comment - this one more 'practical' than moral or ethical. A polygamous relationship tends to be economically superior to a traditional relationship with one or (more often these days) two adult income-earners. In common with social structures such as a kibbutz, multiple adult wage-earners for a single familial structure tends to concentrate wealth in a powerful way.
> 
> Nothing to do with the right or wrong of it, but from a pure economic standpoint, polygamy with multiple spouses earning wages is dynamite.


 

Bill, traditional kibbutzim were not polygamous. they were communal. Residents shared resources and the duty to raise the community's kids, but couple were monogamous.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, traditional kibbutzim were not polygamous. they were communal. Residents shared resources and the duty to raise the community's kids, but couple were monogamous.



Right, that's my point.  By sharing economic resources as one familial unit, they maximized their income.  Nothing about love/sex/marriage, just about pooling of efforts of wage-earners.  Communes, kibbutzes, other types of communities that concentrate income by communal living / sharing arrangements all have a superior economic model for that group than traditional marriages, which are hampered by having a maximum of two adult wage-earners in most cases.


----------



## girlbug2 (Oct 29, 2009)

As per the first quote--No one person can be your everything, I agree with that much. God is supposed to fulfill that role in life. Your spouse is your mate, but not your everything; thinking that a single human being can fulfill your every emotional need will doom any relationship.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another comment - this one more 'practical' than moral or ethical.  A polygamous relationship tends to be economically superior to a traditional relationship with one or (more often these days) two adult income-earners.  In common with social structures such as a kibbutz, multiple adult wage-earners for a single familial structure tends to concentrate wealth in a powerful way.
> 
> Nothing to do with the right or wrong of it, but from a pure economic standpoint, polygamy with multiple spouses earning wages is dynamite.



That sure is true, but the biggest problem this causes is that it reduces consumption.  Our economy is based on consumption.  If polyamoric relationships were "accepted" on a greater level, families would need a whole lot less stuff because so much would be shared.


----------



## MJS (Oct 29, 2009)

Jade Tigress said:


> Article.
> 
> It was interesting to read how people in other countries view monogamy. (Hey Xue, Finland was mentioned. )
> 
> Thoughts?


 
Reading that article with that guy Mark, I almost get a cult like impression.  I say that, because many of these cult leaders have multiple wives and multiple kids.  I'm not saying this guy in the article is a cult leader or member, but it sounds like he wants his cake and to be able to eat it as well.

Will it work?  Who knows.  IMO, in order for it to work, both parties have to be willing participants.  If one person is not interested in sharing his/her mate with someone else, then chances are, that person will leave the relationship.

Will your significant other fulfill every need?  Maybe, maybe not, but you can either deal with it and accept what you have, or do what Mark is doing...again, providing that all participants are on the same page.  

BTW, my Grandparents have been married for 60yrs.  Obviously something is holding their marriage together.


----------



## geezer (Oct 29, 2009)

Well, each to their own. I married late (at 33) found the right person and we've been together over 20 years now. It's probably about the only thing I got right in this life!

What bothers me, however is the huge number of young people who reject the idea of commitment and raise kids out of wedlock. By rejecting commitment, they are setting down a road to raising kids without a complete family unit and that's really tough emotionally, socially and economically.


----------



## Stac3y (Oct 29, 2009)

geezer said:


> Well, each to their own. I married late (at 33) found the right person and we've been together over 20 years now. It's probably about the only thing I got right in this life!
> 
> What bothers me, however is the huge number of young people who reject the idea of commitment and raise kids out of wedlock. By rejecting commitment, they are setting down a road to raising kids without a complete family unit and that's really tough emotionally, socially and economically.


 
Yep. Better to be committed to more than one person (and I have no problem with polyamory, btw; it wouldn't work for me, but TEHO) and have a group rearing a child than just one person. I'm not saying a single person can't do a good job of child-rearing, but as a parent, I can state without reservation that it's damned hard to do a good job with 2 parents. It's got to be a nightmare with just one.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 29, 2009)

MJS said:


> Will your significant other fulfill every need?  Maybe, maybe not, but you can either deal with it and accept what you have, or do what Mark is doing...again, providing that all participants are on the same page.
> 
> BTW, my Grandparents have been married for 60yrs.  Obviously something is holding their marriage together.



+1.

Marriage is a verb. And partners aren't perfect. I'm not, and neither is my wife. We decided we can live with each other imperfections.

Also -and this is important- the part in which you say 'I do' also mentions something about good times AND bad.


----------



## MJS (Oct 29, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> +1.
> 
> Marriage is a verb. And partners aren't perfect. I'm not, and neither is my wife. We decided we can live with each other imperfections.
> 
> Also -and this is important- the part in which you say 'I do' also mentions something about good times AND bad.


 
Good post! 

13yrs for my wife and I.   The ups and downs are part of life.  We deal with them, and move on.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 29, 2009)

7 years and counting.

The last 2 or 3 years have been complicated because of the newborns and prengancies of my wife. In those years, circumstances made us develop some bad habits. It was difficult and it took effort of the both of us to shake them off. Not difficult as in hard to do, but difficult as in 'how do I do this?'. We got out of it and are now stronger than ever.

Long term relationships are rewarding, but they take work. Now imagine if you complicate this further by adding more partners. The chances of finding long term compatible partners decreases exponentially if the number of partners grows. Add kids and legal issues in the mix, and the end result is a disaster waiting to happen. If it doesn't, it is either because all partners are compatible, or there is one dominant partner that the others defer to (like in a cult).


----------



## Omar B (Oct 29, 2009)

I'm monogamous, but I have friends who are a married couple who have an open marriage.  It's interesting, because they are closer than any couple I know and spend pretty much every moment together (they work from home).  Works for some.


----------



## morph4me (Oct 29, 2009)

32 years next month. I can see the appeal of a polyamorous relationship, but it isn't fo me. If it works for some people, more power to them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 29, 2009)

:applause:  Well done sir.  32 years is a sure sign you're both doing something right.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 29, 2009)

geezer said:


> Well, each to their own. I married late (at 33) found the right person and we've been together over 20 years now. It's probably about the only thing I got right in this life!
> 
> What bothers me, however is the huge number of young people who reject the idea of commitment and raise kids out of wedlock. By rejecting commitment, they are setting down a road to raising kids without a complete family unit and that's really tough emotionally, socially and economically.


 

Or do the RIGHT thing and refuse relationships AND have no children. Been that way all my life and I can honestly say, though I MUST be in the minority, that while I have nothing against those of my friends who married or chose to have offspring, that I am so very unspeakably glad I did neither. More and more the way society is turning out these days, the gladder and gladder I get.


----------



## grydth (Oct 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Monogamy works for me.  I have no opinion of how others choose to live their lives.



I agree with this, and like Bill, I have a so-called commuter marriage. My wife and I live 801 miles apart, and yet in another sense are as close as two people can be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2009)

grydth said:


> I agree with this, and like Bill, I have a so-called commuter marriage. My wife and I live 801 miles apart, and yet in another sense are as close as two people can be.



I also have an 800-mile commuter marriage.  Michigan to North Carolina.  We talk on the phone every night for an hour and she comes up here twice a year, I go home twice a year.  One of my coworkers laughed when I told him and said he lives with his wife and doesn't talk to her for an hour a night.  Different strokes and all, I guess.


----------



## grydth (Oct 29, 2009)

One lesson I learned about commuter marriages: Better the right person there part of the time than the wrong person there all of the time.

A fellow faculty member who specializes in human relations also told my wife that we have more interactions than many who live under the same roof full time.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 29, 2009)

Twenty years for us...I don't quite get the two-for-one special thing, but if it works for some group of people, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 29, 2009)

I knew a guy who was in a committed relationship with 5 women. They all lived under the same roof and wouldn`t have it any other way. They even invited me to join them. But it`s deffinately not my thing.


I love my wife. Singular. And I really wouldn`t want anyone else.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 29, 2009)

5!!!!

If he's lucky, he lives with PMS all the time. If not, they syncronized their cycles and he gets 5X the bitching once a month.

No thanks. :boing2:


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 29, 2009)

> *Possibilities in polyamory?*
> 
> "We found the expectation that one person should be our everything seemed unrealistic given our day and age. ... It's oddly pressuring to set up that scenario," said Mark, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, and is in a polyamorous relationship. (He asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons.)


 My gf was doing a lot of research into this (polyamory) for a little while and I basically nipped it in the bud by telling her that she's interested in that she can find someone else. I would not stand for her being in someone else's arms or being in love with someone else while she is (supposedly) in love with me... that is just screwed up thinking IMO. 
I was raised in a monogamous household and have seen the benefits of a monogamous relationship and am in a monogamous relationship right now. 

Polyamory is basically going to be one of the downfalls morally of this country if it keeps up. Just speaking my own personal beliefs and hope that I won't get attacked for it... disagreed upon I can live with. 
I can foresee that a polyamory relationship breaking down a lot sooner than a monogamous relationship over a long term. You CANNOT be with someone without some kind of emotional investment getting in the way... it just won't work. Just like in that movie 9 1/2 weeks both were just committed to a purely sexual relationship but ended up falling in love (and getting their hearts broken because they kept their bargain) in the end. 
Plus think about your love being in the arms of another and not calling it an affair? Plus think about your love being in the arms of another and actually calling what YOU have love? 
I'm afraid it isn't... no matter how you slice it. 
Many animals have more than one mate... but they're animals ... we're not. 
To me it's just one way of having a lover while married and not getting into trouble for it with the spouse. 
Financially? Yeah right... you want to share YOUR hard earned dollars with someone else? Selfish? Maybe but if they go spending something for THEMSELVES they'll need to prove it came from THEIR paycheck and not out of yours right? A lot more headache than it's worth. 

IMO it's immoral and it's stupid.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 29, 2009)

Historically, polygamy has been one man with several women. It made sense in some cultures and periods as it allowed women to have financial security and protection and it allowed resource rich men to have the pubic status and private 'spice' of several sexual partners.

For myself, I can understand why people have affairs and the statistics show that many do - indeed, to my shame, in my younger days I have been the 'other man' when women were seeking escape and solace when their marriages seemed to be failing. I don't want to give the impression that this was a common occurence - it just happened more than once and only in one case did I know beforehand that the lady was married. But even then, I was under no illusions as to my 'role'. I was no more than an avenue for them to test whether their 'real' relationship meant anything to them or not.

My own opinion and the one that I have made known to every woman who has been in my life is that, whilst I might not expect them to have an affair, I am realistic enough to know that, at least once, they may be tempted.  If they are, all I ask is that I don't know about it - no 'crisis of honesty' that causes them to tell all and make a wound that will fester for ever. For understanding something intellectually and accepting it emotionally are two very different things.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 29, 2009)

Sukerin!  You telling me that story reminded me of something from in my late teens.

I was working in Long Island and living in Queens taking the Long Island Rail Road home every night.  Unlike the MTA subway, the LIRR at night sometime takes a half an hour between trains.  So there I was sitting on a bench and got into a conversation with these 2 girls waiting on the train.  They were in town from Boston for the weekend partying.  So I gave them my number.  Turned out they were staying just 1 train stop away from where I live.

They called me the next night and met me at the train station.  We hang out at a bar near my place then go home.  One of them came home with me.  Next morning talking I get to find out, she's married!  Imagine how awful I felt, some husband in Boston thinks his wife's in NY with her sister for the weekend and what's she doing?


----------



## Joab (Oct 29, 2009)

Yes, monogamy is realistic, I have been married for over four years and I'm completely fulfilled with my wife and my wife alone. I have no desire to stray, no desire to have another or swing or any of that. One man, one woman, together is very realistic and practical and really the way to go.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 29, 2009)

I'm pushing the proverbial up hill now just trying to remember one bloody anniversary.
If there were several to keep track of I'd have no hope.


----------



## Carol (Oct 30, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> 5!!!!
> 
> If he's lucky, he lives with PMS all the time. If not, they syncronized their cycles and he gets 5X the bitching once a month.
> 
> No thanks. :boing2:



Stay classy, dude.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 30, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Historically, polygamy has been one man with several women. It made sense in some cultures and periods as it allowed women to have financial security and protection and it allowed resource rich men to have the *pubic *status and private 'spice' of several sexual partners.



Freudian slip of the tongue? 

Additionally, in some cultures, a high mortality rate among men may have had to do with it as well. Society as a whole then needed to adapt to come up with a role for the surplus of women.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Oct 30, 2009)

Polygamy and polyamory are a bit different. They don't want another spouse, or multiple spouses, they want to be *committed* to their spouse with the freedom to have a sexual and emotional relationship with other people. 

Many, many people have affairs. Short term affairs and long term affairs. It's basically polyamory kept secret. 

*For the record, I believe in monogamy.* People who believe in polyamory believe jealousy is a sign of weakness in a relationship and something that must be overcome. (I personally know someone who believes in polyamory and that's what he told me). 

I believe _some_ jealousy in a relationship is healthy and normal. Not over the top out of control jealousy, which can be equally damaging as having no jealousy. But to me, jealousy means you care about that person. You're not jealous if you don't care. 

The guy in article, *Mark*, stated it does not bother him to see his wife with other men but he also stated it was odd to see. If you _really_ care about someone you _will_ feel jealousy if they are with someone else on a romantic level. I think the polyamorous crowd just denies and suppresses their feelings of jealousy. 

My polyamorous friend told me about his first long time girlfriend. They were in an open relationship and he told me about having to overcome his feelings of jealousy, he said it like experiencing jealousy was a low intelligence distasteful thing. I can't remember his exact words but they believe that monogamy and jealousy is unevolved and polyamory is the higher level of existence. 

Interestingly, he and his girlfriend broke up after 8 years, the open relationship finally took it's toll and I know he's sorry because of the way he talks about it. BUT, he STILL believes in polyamory and has been searching for another open relationship since he lost his last girlfriend.


----------



## Stac3y (Oct 30, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> 5!!!!
> 
> If he's lucky, he lives with PMS all the time. If not, they syncronized their cycles and he gets 5X the bitching once a month.
> 
> No thanks. :boing2:


 
Definition of PMS: The few days each month when a woman acts like a man acts ALL the time. (don't blame me; I didn't make it up)


----------



## MJS (Oct 30, 2009)

Jade Tigress said:


> Polygamy and polyamory are a bit different. They don't want another spouse, or multiple spouses, they want to be *committed* to their spouse with the freedom to have a sexual and emotional relationship with other people.
> 
> Many, many people have affairs. Short term affairs and long term affairs. It's basically polyamory kept secret.
> 
> ...


 
Good points!   I know some people, who think its odd or wrong, for you to go out with the opposite sex, without your significant other.  So, in other words, for me to go out, socially, for lunch, for example, alone, without my wife, that means I'm up to no good, cheating, whatever.  I call BS on that, and IMO, those people need to snap back to the present time and most importantly, mind their own business. Just because those people have an issue with it, doesnt make it right for them to question what I'm doing, involve themselves with what I'm doing or wonder how my wife feels about it.  Personally, I think I know my wife better than they, so enough said. 

As I said in other posts, if this is what someone wants to do, well, whatever floats their boat.  As long as both parties involved are ok with it.  Would my wife approve of me having a casual sexual relationship with someone else?  I'd be lying if I said yes.  

I'm happy, she's happy, and hopefully we'll grow old together.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 30, 2009)

Jade Tigress said:


> Many, many people have affairs. Short term affairs and long term affairs. It's basically polyamory kept secret.



There is a difference.  Many people have affairs, but most people state that they do not think affairs are a good thing.  In other words, like cheating on taxes or running stop signs or failing to pull over for a fire truck, people do it, but if you ask them, they deny doing it and also claim it is a bad thing that others do it.  Polyamorous people don't just hide affairs, they claim it is morally acceptable to do so.  Many polyamorous people 'hide' just like those who merely cheat - but they may choose to hide from a spouse or from the rest of their family or from the world at large.

One argument that has been persistently used in arguing for polyamory is that since so many people cheat in relationships, it must be our natural state or proclivity.  In other words, we are going to do it, so what's the big deal about accepting that we do it?

Perhaps it is natural for humans not to mate for life or not to mate exclusively with one partner at a time.  However, for our social structure to continue to exist in its present form, it appears to be one of the pillars that keeps our society working.  If this structure is to be abandoned, one might consider what other structures will be lost along with this one.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Oct 30, 2009)

MJS said:


> Good points!   I know some people, who think its odd or wrong, for you to go out with the opposite sex, without your significant other.  So, in other words, for me to go out, socially, for lunch, for example, alone, without my wife, that means I'm up to no good, cheating, whatever.  I call BS on that, and IMO, those people need to snap back to the present time and most importantly, mind their own business. Just because those people have an issue with it, doesnt make it right for them to question what I'm doing, involve themselves with what I'm doing or wonder how my wife feels about it.  Personally, I think I know my wife better than they, so enough said.



Yep, that's BS. The key is a romantic involvement. I have many male FRIENDS. They are like brothers to me. There is one guy I know who I am very close too. He is my brother from another mother. I am also very good friends with his wife. One day last summer my friend and I ran to the store together. His wife had a fit because we were alone in the car together. THIS WOMAN KNOWS ME AND CALLS ME HER FRIEND. She knows her husband would never cheat on her. I was offended at her implication, but I also know she is a very insecure person. I just expected her to trust her husband and her friend. Her husband is the most true blue guy I know. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a difference.  Many people have affairs, but most people state that they do not think affairs are a good thing.  In other words, like cheating on taxes or running stop signs or failing to pull over for a fire truck, people do it, but if you ask them, they deny doing it and also claim it is a bad thing that others do it.  Polyamorous people don't just hide affairs, they claim it is morally acceptable to do so.  Many polyamorous people 'hide' just like those who merely cheat - but they may choose to hide from a spouse or from the rest of their family or from the world at large.
> 
> One argument that has been persistently used in arguing for polyamory is that since so many people cheat in relationships, it must be our natural state or proclivity.  In other words, we are going to do it, so what's the big deal about accepting that we do it?
> 
> Perhaps it is natural for humans not to mate for life or not to mate exclusively with one partner at a time.  However, for our social structure to continue to exist in its present form, it appears to be one of the pillars that keeps our society working.  If this structure is to be abandoned, one might consider what other structures will be lost along with this one.



You make good points Bill. My point is that a person having an affair is in an emotional as well as sexual relationship with someone other than their spouse. They are romantically loving more than one person. That is polyamory. They know their spouse won't accept it so they hide it. It's polyamory in secret. It's different than casual sex cheating. A one night stand somewhere. I'm talking about _affairs_. 

Polyamory is like having an affair out in the open, not having to hide it because the spouse is fine with the affair and can have an affair of their own without recourse if they so choose. 

People having an affair know it's not a good thing because they know it will damage their primary relationship. In a polyamorous relationship the parties involved claim it does not damage the primary relationship, therefore, it is not kept secret.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 30, 2009)

:lol:  Thanks Bruno - I do read before I post, honestly but that one obviously slipped through the not-the-word-I-mean 'filter'


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a difference. Many people have affairs, but most people state that they do not think affairs are a good thing. In other words, like cheating on taxes or running stop signs or failing to pull over for a fire truck, people do it, but if you ask them, they deny doing it and also claim it is a bad thing that others do it. Polyamorous people don't just hide affairs, they claim it is morally acceptable to do so. Many polyamorous people 'hide' just like those who merely cheat - but they may choose to hide from a spouse or from the rest of their family or from the world at large.
> 
> One argument that has been persistently used in arguing for polyamory is that since so many people cheat in relationships, it must be our natural state or proclivity. In other words, we are going to do it, so what's the big deal about accepting that we do it?
> 
> Perhaps it is natural for humans not to mate for life or not to mate exclusively with one partner at a time. However, for our social structure to continue to exist in its present form, it appears to be one of the pillars that keeps our society working. If this structure is to be abandoned, one might consider what other structures will be lost along with this one.


 

At this point, I rather suspect enough else is crumbling that we'll be too busy to notice when this one does too.


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 30, 2009)

I can't speak fo rothers...btu I'd make a very poor polygamist.   I'm too damn insecure to have to deal with more than one mate.  I've got my hands full as it is   It's a good thing.

Peace,
Erik


----------

