Heteromonogamy is really just another way to waste women's time, isn't it?

Not read all the replies since this morning so apologies if I'm repeating anyone else's thoughts.

SGB: First you have to find the man, then you have to catch the man, then you have to keep pleasing the man and also policing him so no breach of monogamy can occur.

Of course the above is crap, crap, crap for women - that version of heteromonogamy is not conducive to a happy or fulfilled life as a woman. I honestly find it hard to comprehend anyone who actually lives their life like that though. I live a fairly sheltered life and most of my friends/family fit into the hetermonogamous category but that description would not fit me or any of the women I know. (It might be that I just know really cool, strong women :) )

As for my personal experience, monogamy is part of the deal with my and DH, it's something we both feel strongly about. However, we don't police each other or stress about it, we just accept that while we are happy in our relationship we will not seek sexual fulfilment elsewhere. We are also agreed that if we get to a stage where we find ourselves on the brink of this then something has gone badly wrong with our relationship and we need to A. Sort it out or B. Break up.

As for catching and pleasing the man. Urgh. Being considerate of a partner's feelings and thinking about them should be par for the course in a relationship. But I definitely don't buy into this 1950s claptrap of 20 ways to please your man blah blah blah. Do what works and fuck what other people think.

(sorry that was rather ranty and incoherent)

SAF - indeed, really it is best not to assume either way, but talk about it adult to adult and only have unprotected sex with someone you are willing to commit with to an 18 year+ relationship (of some sort...).

Perhaps I read it wrong but I read cutsoftheirtails's dismisal of finding someone willing to commit (to be a dad) as pointless 'jumping through hoops'.
This seems like thowing out the baby with the bathwater, and lumping the heteromonogamy question together with the one about being a responsible parent.

e.g. "woman who have children in their late 30s because it took until then to convince their long-term boyfriend to agree to TTC." The question here isn't about monogamy it is about fatherhood.

i think one of the problems is-society still doesnt see that a sp/non traditional family is a bonifide family.
also-society still doesnt see/like to see that women are quite capable and quite capable of raising a family in a non traditional way.

SAF - I agree with you, there are many kinds of arrangements that adults can make that involve two people being ready and willing to become parents on some kind of mutually agreed basis (whether as sperm donor, co-parent, partner or whatever).

But assuming that having unprotected sex = ready and willing to be a parent, seems unrealistic, no?

Thanks SaF, I am aware that people do make different arrangements. My point was in response to Lenin who was querying the role of knowing your biological heritage.

The points I referenced are very much part of what is going on in the world nowadays, you may not like to hear them, but they do exist, so less of the patronising please.

It's all very well saying that it is the non-committal man who is at fault, but what comfort are women supposed to take from that? Roll their eyes up to the heavens and sigh, accepting men's inability to commit as determining her life?

But if a man does want a relationship with his children and does want to 'be a dad' it is a completely different situation than what Himalaya describes though.

She's talking about woman waiting for a man to be ready so that the children never hear from him that 'he didn't want them'. Men can't have it both ways. They can't expect to be hold women to ransom with the expectation that they want to be dads

I think the 'not commiting men' are at fault. A downside to family planning is that they are allowed to get away with having their cake and eating it. Many threads on here where the women is ready and the man isn't and it's still the woman who has to carry on taking contraception.

I think that actually it's a very long time since society has been so open to the idea of having children as a single person, or with somebody of the same sex via annonymous donor, or with somebody with whom you are not in a romantic relationship, or after breakdown of a romantic relationship.

All of these set ups are currently now modelled in our real life, films, tv, books... and although not 'the norm', there are many areas of society in which these models are utterly accepted.

For me monogamy is about knowing that bringing up children is one of life's hardest jobs ever and wanting to be really really bloody picky about who i am willing to share that job with. There is no doubt in my mind that being a single parent is a hard road, and on the other hand, i would find polygamy very tricky as i always find even in my friendships, that 1:1 relationships easier than trios or quads where somebody is always 'left out' and there is just so much more complication.

Not sure about that Lenin. In the US particularly, there are a quite a few donor conceived folks out there who are very unhappy that they will never know their biological heritage. This blog is a pretty good insight: cryokidconfessions.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html

And just google 'Transracial adoption' to find another subset of people who are none too thrilled about being disconnected from their biological heritage.

It's easy for people not in that situation to say it's no big deal, but some those who are say something else.

Doesnt marriage give you legal protection?
I dont care whether i am married or not, long as dh does all the work

TFMBJ - It's more then just the wishes of the mother here though. The child will not have a father. How good or bad that is is open to interpretation, but like Himalaya, I'm not comfortable with pretending it's no big deal.

Monogamy is far less time consuming for me then polyamory or swinging would be. The thought of having more then one romantic relationship sounds like far too much hard work and I wouldn't fancy having to scour the internet/ go to a swingers club everytime I fancied having sex.

I agree that the fairytale image of monogamy is a myth in many ways, the truth is most people are monogamous because it is practical.

yep-i agree SAF.[13.58]
yet again-mans ownership of women.

But if you don't expect him to be a dad, it there any problem?

As I've said I am not waving the flag for heteromonogamy/marriage being the only way, or advocating that anyone should put their life on hold waiting for 'the one' (or fooling themselves that 'the bloke who clearly isn't the one' is a frog prince).

I agree, with SGB that having a child should be a commitment to the child which involves treating the child's mother with kindness, fairness and courtesy and that we should work on changing men's behaviour so that they take more responsibility for contraception if they don't want to become fathers, and put more effort into fatherhood when they do.

I just don't think this is compatible with the idea that 'if women are ready to have children [there is no good reason why they should] wait to find a man ready and willing to do so?' - in other words if you want to have a baby it is perfectly OK to do so with a man who you know is not ready and willing to be a dad.

If there is no moral fact that a child's relationship with their biological dad, and any half-sibs is significant (and therefore worth thinking about as consenting adults before you TTC) then I don't think you can argue that dads should put more effort into fatherhood -- surely they could just turn around and say 'well thats just your values'

(...I know that in practice, people don't think things through, or get to know their partners quite so rationally - but as a principle the two seem incompatible).

(Rivinside - which bit of the dad bit don't you agree on?)

Handdived, yes and men also want/need a woman to raise those children and do the majority of the donkey work involved in having a happy family life.