To think monogamy is a bit unnatural??

[Glassofshloer]

A few years ago I had a conversation with a friend about cheating which popped into my head reading some of the ‘OW/husband cheated’ threads on here.

She said she and her DP had mutually agreed that they could sleep with other people if they wanted to, provided they used a condom and didn’t tell the other one. I don’t think she meant a proper affair, just ONS type encounters.

Reading a lot of the infidelity threads on here, AIBU to think the rigid norms of monogamy are ridiculous and maybe my friend has it right?

I know most people will say ‘if you can’t stay faithful don’t have a LTR’ but I don’t think that’s quite fair given society makes it basically impossible to settle down and have a family without one. And very few people would commit to somebody who wants an open marriage.

Basically what I’m saying is are we trying to fight our instincts when it comes to monogamy, and is it worth it given so many people seem to cheat anyway? Are we all holding ourselves to impossible standards?

Very prepared to be flamed & I expect I will be!

Human babies need lots of resources. They need multiple people raising them and lots of support for long. That’s why back in cave times babies of people who tended to be monogamous ended up doing better, and that’s why we evolved into monogamy. It’s not a construct, it’s evolutionary pressure. (Explains occasional cheating too.)

On a practical side I agree with the PP who asked who can be arsed to have multiple sexual / emotional partners I am in my 40s and certainly can’t imagine anything worse.

@ElftonWednesday

I don't know, even when I was very sexually active in my early 20s, going out with more than one person at a time was confusing and weird. In my 40s I've very little sex drive at all and I wonder who could be arsed with having an additional sexual partner, or an affair or any of that. Who on earth has the time or the energy?

Are you married? How does it work with your DP?

I think where there are children in the mix, monogamy is best for them but consenting adults can do what they want.
I personally couldn’t cope with it and love the safety of a monogamous relationship due to a childhood spent with rejecting adults.

I like the idea of the matrilineal moso community's way of doing things.

'walking marriages'

I think monogamy isn't as normal as it is prevalent, if you see what I mean - I think it's fine if that's what you prefer, and lots of people do, but I think the fact that it's the default is odd.

DH and I are monogamous, and I'm perfectly happy with that. However we've talked about ethical nonmonogamy/polyamory in the past and I'm not fundmentally opposed to the idea. I know quite a few ENM/polyamorous people and they are perfectly happy and have excellent communication and boundaries - better than a lot of monogamous couples I know, in fact.

So I think monogamy is perfectly natural, if it actually feels natural - but I think non-monogamy should also be seen as perfectly natural, and accepted as such.

I find it’s usually men who think they’re cleverer than they are that come out with this stuff. One way of trying to assessing how actually ‘natural’ or otherwise monogamy is involves looking at average human testicle size by comparison with the same measure in gorillas and chimpanzees. The greater the testicle to body ratio, the more promiscuous the females of the species. So: bonobos, pretty enormous; chimps, still much greater than in humans; gorillas, slightly smaller than humans. Bonobos are wildly promiscuous, gorillas not very promiscuous at all, and humans fall somewhere in between but closer to the gorilla end of the spectrum, so the evidence suggests that female humans are not naturally very promiscuous. Might still mean males are, and of course polygamy is common in some cultures. But it’s well known now that nations with a high degree of polygamy have less stable and more violent societies, mostly because they result in a large number of unwillingly celibate young men. In other words, monogamy is generally socially and economically advantageous for the group. Finally, if general promiscuity were really ‘natural’ for humanity as a species we might expect to see it forming the dominant social model somewhere at some time, which...well, I can’t think of any examples. And that’s hardly surprising given that in nature the primary purpose of sex is to breed, and given how onerous it is to bring up human offspring most sensible females have historically wanted help of some kind from the male parent. If a male animal is to contribute to child rearing he wants to know the children are his, which predisposes him against general promiscuity. Indeed the only setting in which the kind of recreational unfaithfulness suggested by claims that monogamy isn’t natural could exist is one with good birth control. And birth control is really, really not natural.
In other words, very hard to say how ‘natural’ monogamy is, but based on biology, politics and history it looks like the most widely practicable and advantageous model. What annoys me about the question though is that I’m not sure why it matters if it’s ‘natural’. Almost nothing we do is natural anymore. It’s not natural to live alone or bathe every day or spend all day on Twitter or Mumsnet, yet here we all are. And oddly enough I never see the sort of men who talk about monogamy being unnatural (and therefore implicitly something they needn’t bother with) wittering about how unnatural it is to drive a car or eat large amounts of red meat without ever having to kill anything.
People should do what’s right for them whilst still treating their sexual partners fairly. Don’t like monogamy? Fine, do polyamory or ethical non-monogamy. But don’t try and make bog standard infidelity or a weaselly inability to commit to a relationship seem inevitable with intellectually lazy appeals to ‘nature’.

@RoseAndGeranium

I find it’s usually men who think they’re cleverer than they are that come out with this stuff. One way of trying to assessing how actually ‘natural’ or otherwise monogamy is involves looking at average human testicle size by comparison with the same measure in gorillas and chimpanzees. The greater the testicle to body ratio, the more promiscuous the females of the species. So: bonobos, pretty enormous; chimps, still much greater than in humans; gorillas, slightly smaller than humans. Bonobos are wildly promiscuous, gorillas not very promiscuous at all, and humans fall somewhere in between but closer to the gorilla end of the spectrum, so the evidence suggests that female humans are not naturally very promiscuous. Might still mean males are, and of course polygamy is common in some cultures. But it’s well known now that nations with a high degree of polygamy have less stable and more violent societies, mostly because they result in a large number of unwillingly celibate young men. In other words, monogamy is generally socially and economically advantageous for the group. Finally, if general promiscuity were really ‘natural’ for humanity as a species we might expect to see it forming the dominant social model somewhere at some time, which...well, I can’t think of any examples. And that’s hardly surprising given that in nature the primary purpose of sex is to breed, and given how onerous it is to bring up human offspring most sensible females have historically wanted help of some kind from the male parent. If a male animal is to contribute to child rearing he wants to know the children are his, which predisposes him against general promiscuity. Indeed the only setting in which the kind of recreational unfaithfulness suggested by claims that monogamy isn’t natural could exist is one with good birth control. And birth control is really, really not natural. In other words, very hard to say how ‘natural’ monogamy is, but based on biology, politics and history it looks like the most widely practicable and advantageous model. What annoys me about the question though is that I’m not sure why it matters if it’s ‘natural’. Almost nothing we do is natural anymore. It’s not natural to live alone or bathe every day or spend all day on Twitter or Mumsnet, yet here we all are. And oddly enough I never see the sort of men who talk about monogamy being unnatural (and therefore implicitly something they needn’t bother with) wittering about how unnatural it is to drive a car or eat large amounts of red meat without ever having to kill anything. People should do what’s right for them whilst still treating their sexual partners fairly. Don’t like monogamy? Fine, do polyamory or ethical non-monogamy. But don’t try and make bog standard infidelity or a weaselly inability to commit to a relationship seem inevitable with intellectually lazy appeals to ‘nature’.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Great comment.

I think if it feels unnatural don't do it but. don't make promises then lie and cheat.

I do think our society puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that people should be married or in a Long term relationship, when the truth is, some people don't want to be and there is no shame in not wanting to settle down, providing your actions are responsible and not at the detriment to another.

I personally never wanted multiple partners, I never wanted to be sleeping with lots of different fellas, it just wasn't what floated my boat. I love being with my DH and genuinely couldn't imagine being with anyone else, it turns my tummy a little TBH.

And I wonder would the men even be "equally happy" for their wife to sleep with other men or would he assume she'd still only be faithful to him. Double standards are also a big thing when it comes to men sleeping around from my experience (again I'm sure some men would be fine with it but from previous conversations experiences there are a lot of men who think it's unnatural for men to be monogamous but think women should be)

After a few drinks I let it slip to my husband that I fantasised about sleeping with other men. He said fine, just don’t do it behind my back.

The funny thing is, now I know that I can, I don’t feel the urge anymore.

I think people who struggle with monogamy should certainly be open about it rather than making promises they can’t keep.
Personally I’d have zero interest in an open relationship.

I think a distinction needs to be made between "short term" monogamy and "long term" monogamy.

Most people - even most men -- want to be monogamous for a period when they are in love with someone. That might be 18 months or 20 years. But while it works it works well. But there's often a natural end to that will to monogamy: a time when it becomes dull or when you are no longer getting your emotional or sexual needs met.

The question is what you do beyond that point. Society generally dictates that if you've been monogamous for any length of time you should stick it out until the bitter end - and often people are too financially enmeshed by that point to separate. For some people sticking it out is the right thing to do and they have reached a lull in their lives where their partner is no longer giving them what they need but they know they can get past it with time, discussion and understanding.

For many others this is the natural time to draw a line and staying in the relationship will actually hold you back and prevent you from achieving your full potential.

The trick is working out which bucket you fall into. And because society has such a vested interest in pushing people to stay together when they are no longer getting the best out of the relationship it can become very difficult to tell and to allow yourself to act when you do work it out.

I'm a big believer in "short term" monogamy: I would not be able to handle polyamory and a committed relationship without fidelity wouldn't be worth it for me. But I'm not as convinced that "long term" monogamy is a very good thing. I think the vast majority of people are not really cut out to remain together for two thirds of their life. A lot of the people who remain in unhappy or unfulfilled LTRs would actually get far more out of their lives on their own or with other partners.

I think society would be improved if we were better at spotting that natural end to the optimal period of monogamy and in an understanding and non financially crippling way moving beyond it. The problem we have is that every relationship which has any period of monogamy is expected to go the 60 year distance and is regarded as a failure if it doesn't.

In fact, a happy 10 year relationship which ends with respect and affection is a very long way from being a failure. We ought to get better at identifying this.

For the majority of people (especially men) yes I think it is

But I would hope a partner is faithful

I think most people would struggle having an open relationship and affairs can still happen what if one of the partners starts to develop feelings for someone else it’s not so simple as being purely about sex as we are more complex than that

'Natural' ? what's that?
Like Herbal Essences shampoo ?

Biologically/ naturally/cave man evolutionary speaking it is probably the case that monogamy is unnatural for men but 'natural' for woman - by which I mean most likely to progated your genes for survival.

Men are able to 'bear' lots of children at the same time in the sense of get many women pregnant at the same time whereas a woman can only bear one child at once and for a period thereafter (imagine cave man situation) will be vulnerable and unable to care for more than one or two at once.

The woman has a vested interest in the male bonding with her and the child to provide protection for her and the child from the sabre tooth tigers - to protect the future of her genes. This is only likely to happen if he truly believes the child is his - which in the wild would be difficult without DNA tests. It's one of the reasons why babies tend to look very much like the father in the first months of their life. Monogamy(only for women) suits men for this reason as a social construct to maximise the chances that the child is theirs.

Basically life sucks because even evolution favours a patriachal society.

No it's not natural. But it is by far the safer way to bring up children. Children brought up by single parents are statistically at far greater risk in every single way than those brought up in two parent families. The risk of abuse from a step parent is five times greater than from a natural parent. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.goodtherapy.org/blog/stepchildren-family-parents-abuse-0409132/amp/
Women are far more likely to live in poverty if they're left by their partner/leave their partner. That impacts badly on their child. There are amazingly powerful socio economic and social reasons for maintaining monogamous relationships. But many people are selfish bastards who no longer feel the shame of divorce so they cheat and destroy families...choosing pleasure over duty and themselves over their children. It's why crime is high, why abuse is high, why mental health proliferates. Look up childhood ACEs and divorce is right up there. It's the elephant in the room because so wants likes to feel guilty/apportion blame, but monogamy is vital to a well functioning society. I shall be flamed no doubt but I work for the police, In close conjunction with social services and kids from stable homes are not the ones that go to prison/end up on the streets.

"Social construct" versus "natural" is a false dichotomy. Humans are part of the natural world. Everything humans do is therefore natural to them.

This idea that there is a 'natural' ie authentic way for humans to behave, and that this imaginary authentic way is best, is a crock of shit that obscures the real question of whether non-monogamy is generally a good idea.

@ChesapeakeEmbarrassed

Biologically/ naturally/cave man evolutionary speaking it is probably the case that monogamy is unnatural for men but 'natural' for woman - by which I mean most likely to progated your genes for survival.

Men are able to 'bear' lots of children at the same time in the sense of get many women pregnant at the same time whereas a woman can only bear one child at once and for a period thereafter (imagine cave man situation) will be vulnerable and unable to care for more than one or two at once.

The woman has a vested interest in the male bonding with her and the child to provide protection for her and the child from the sabre tooth tigers - to protect the future of her genes. This is only likely to happen if he truly believes the child is his - which in the wild would be difficult without DNA tests. It's one of the reasons why babies tend to look very much like the father in the first months of their life. Monogamy(only for women) suits men for this reason as a social construct to maximise the chances that the child is theirs.

Basically life sucks because even evolution favours a patriachal society.

I think your speciation actually suggests that marriage / relationships is a matriarchal institution that men are obliged to submit to against their true natures (fwiw I don't accept this, or what you've just said).

Poly/open/non-monogamous relationships rarely work as often one person wants it more then the other.

Even if that’s not the case the couple is vulnerable to feelings of the other people and their other people and so on. I know a few couples and they are always embroiled in someone else’s drama, feelings, problems etc. to the detriment of their own relationship.

They have all ended up breaking up, not breaking up but not being happy either or even in love with someone else, or are seriously on the rocks.

The main issue I think people have is not so much monogamy as in only having one partner, but not knowing how and when to break up once a relationship isn’t working.

When people say that those relationships dont work, do you just mean these relationships often dont last forever? Is that the only measure?

I am friends with some people who enjoy polyamory.
They all seem to enjoy it.

@RoseAndGeranium

I find it’s usually men who think they’re cleverer than they are that come out with this stuff. One way of trying to assessing how actually ‘natural’ or otherwise monogamy is involves looking at average human testicle size by comparison with the same measure in gorillas and chimpanzees. The greater the testicle to body ratio, the more promiscuous the females of the species. So: bonobos, pretty enormous; chimps, still much greater than in humans; gorillas, slightly smaller than humans. Bonobos are wildly promiscuous, gorillas not very promiscuous at all, and humans fall somewhere in between but closer to the gorilla end of the spectrum, so the evidence suggests that female humans are not naturally very promiscuous. Might still mean males are, and of course polygamy is common in some cultures. But it’s well known now that nations with a high degree of polygamy have less stable and more violent societies, mostly because they result in a large number of unwillingly celibate young men. In other words, monogamy is generally socially and economically advantageous for the group. Finally, if general promiscuity were really ‘natural’ for humanity as a species we might expect to see it forming the dominant social model somewhere at some time, which...well, I can’t think of any examples. And that’s hardly surprising given that in nature the primary purpose of sex is to breed, and given how onerous it is to bring up human offspring most sensible females have historically wanted help of some kind from the male parent. If a male animal is to contribute to child rearing he wants to know the children are his, which predisposes him against general promiscuity. Indeed the only setting in which the kind of recreational unfaithfulness suggested by claims that monogamy isn’t natural could exist is one with good birth control. And birth control is really, really not natural. In other words, very hard to say how ‘natural’ monogamy is, but based on biology, politics and history it looks like the most widely practicable and advantageous model. What annoys me about the question though is that I’m not sure why it matters if it’s ‘natural’. Almost nothing we do is natural anymore. It’s not natural to live alone or bathe every day or spend all day on Twitter or Mumsnet, yet here we all are. And oddly enough I never see the sort of men who talk about monogamy being unnatural (and therefore implicitly something they needn’t bother with) wittering about how unnatural it is to drive a car or eat large amounts of red meat without ever having to kill anything. People should do what’s right for them whilst still treating their sexual partners fairly. Don’t like monogamy? Fine, do polyamory or ethical non-monogamy. But don’t try and make bog standard infidelity or a weaselly inability to commit to a relationship seem inevitable with intellectually lazy appeals to ‘nature’.

hear hear

We’re very happy 34 monogamous years on. Everyone’s different, I guess 🤷‍♀️

Yanbu. The idea of monogamy is a social construct as is guilt. If I snog someone else and my husband never finds out, what actually happens? What harm is done if my DH snogs someone else and doesn’t tell me? None. It’s a moral matter and morals are subjective
I love my DH but I do crave variety and miss the excitement of flirting and banter etc etc
I’ve told my DH if he gets drunk and gets off with someone just don’t tell me.

I’ve been married 27 years. I’ve not wanted to sleep with or even kiss anyone else in that time and neither has my husband. It’s definitely not for me.

As long as a couple are happy with the arrangement they have I can’t see a problem.

its late so bear with me if I am not clear.....there seems to be a suggestion that because something is a "social construct", its not natural?....but social constructs are, by definition constructs that are agreed by groups, or by the majority of the group and the reason that they endure is because they benefit the group...and they benefit the group by benefitting the majority of the individuals by providing the usual needs, food, shelter, protection, and also by creating an environment in which the group can grow and flourish.....kind of group evolution....unsuccessful social mutations of the construct don't survive, sucessful social mutations of the construct out perform their predecessors until they are the dominant social construct.