Do we expect too much of ourselves (and each other) in terms of monogamy?

[Frrrrightattendant]

Is it even 'natural'?

I've been wondering this for ages - and not particularly in the context of any of my relationships, but it does come up and I'm interested to know if it's a minority view or there's something in it.

I was wondering whether we are, in terms of nature, really built to stay with the same person for ever. Or even for several years...or as long as our children are small(ish)?

What's the human condition got over other animals that makes us aspire to a lifelong mate? Do animals have other partners...I am ignorant on the science aspect.

It's just that I have seen so many people divorce and split up and thinking about it there does seem to be a big dissonance between social expectation (ie find ONE person, marry them, have kids, stay together) and what often happens.

I suppose I'm wondering if it might be a good thing to lower our expectations a bit - instead of getting hopeful and then being horrendously disappointed when one partner fancies someone else, or goes and has an affair or whatever.

I'm trying to word this sensitively so I hope it doesn't upset anyone. But I'm just not sure we are all cut out for long marriages.

What do people think?

I can only speak from my own experience and from what I can see of people around me who are in very long term relationships. It seems to me that in order to maintain the status quo in long term relationships where there is a lot at stake (children, finances, homes etc) a certain amount of deception goes on, either overt or covert. I am not saying that is necessarily a good thing, but I think it happens.

There is no way of knowing what goes on behind closed doors but it would be extremely naive to imagine that every long term married couple is living a life of blissful monogamy! Just read these boards for a start!

I personally know of people who chose to turn a blind eye to partners who they suspect of various forms of infidelity, because they have decided that they would prefer to stay in the relationship for a whole host of reasons - children, comfortable home etc.

Regarding your last paragraph Tadpoles, I think it is instead hugely naive to think that "turning a blind eye" solves the problem, because one of these days (if it hasn't already happened) there is going to be huge hurt knocking at the door.

This will happen when one of the parties rather inconveniently falls in love and wants a more honest relationship, without smoke, mirrors and deception. I suspect these friends of yours are pretending that it doesn't hurt, as long as they are not forced to confront it - but I bet it does hurt, very much.

I think there might be a difference between how we're biologically programmed and how we choose to behave as humans.

Firstly, there are millions of women out there more attractive than we are, no point in denying it. Our DPs probably see 10-20 women a day that are more beautiful than us.

Does that mean they should try to go off with these women? No, because our human relationships are about far more than the physical. They're about emotions and shared history.

Actually I'm frequently amazed at how many MNers do in practice demonstrate SGB's point magnificently - the idea that one might want a life outside The Family or The Relationship is considered really quite iffy. Any friendship with someone with differently-shaped genitalia is automatically suspect, and probably constitutes an Emotional Affair.

Then you're not reading people's posts properly, MotherInferior and I recall you missing the point spectacularly on a recent thread about opposite-sex friendships. I think your desire to take the piss, overtook a desire to debate, then as now.

whenwillI - yes, I do not doubt there is all sorts of hurt but when there is a mismatch between society's expectation and reality, then there is already deception, even without doing anything. The stereotype view of marriage as walking into the sunset leads people to have false expectations which can end up in bitterness and disappointment. Because my parents had a pretty peculiar marriage I went into marriage with relatively low expectations. Not necessarily a good thing.

However, what is good is that I have found myself pleasantly surprised that all my gloomy predictions have not happened (yet!) I never expected it to be a bed of roses but actually, it's better than I thought it would be! Sorry to be so cynical but I guess we all have our own unique perspective on relationships.

One of my friend's had parents who had the "perfect" marriage, or so it seemed, and she ended up bitterly disappointed when her husband turned out to be a bit of an arse, she didn't really have a good radar for avoiding dud men. The advantage of a rather hopeless father is that your radar is highly tuned in order to avoid the same mistake that your mother made. Does that make sense?

No, I do think that many people think of their partners and their Relationship - which becomes rather puzzlingly an entity in itself - as taking a priority above everything else. And I'm not sure I agree with that. And I do, also, think that there is a tendency to read every friendship between men and women as an Emotional Affair.

There is a subsuming of so much, from friendship to money, that is assumed to be the right way to act. Quite separate from the complications of sex and affection, which are complicated and yes, are for many of us most happily constrained within monogamy but with - as LeninGhoul says - some regret for many people.

Tadpoles yes your post makes perfect sense, that you under-expected and marriage for you, over-delivered. I think I fall into that camp too, as did my H, because likewise, neither of us had good templates to follow from our families of origin. However, it doesn't seem to further the debate in the points you made downthread, about the "marital arrangements" that prop up your friends' marriages, but not yours, it seems.

What I am saying is similar to you in part - couples shouldn't be so naive as to think that monogamy will be easy, because in most monogamous relationships, both parties will meet people to whom they are attracted. I'm not entirely sure what is your view on this thread about the solution to that. Are you suggesting that affairs, open relationships, swinging clubs and "turning a blind eye" are the best solutions, or are you suggesting that honesty and dialogue about temptations and attraction are preferable?

Mother I'm equally unsure about which posters you are referring to. If it helps, my view is that opposite-sex friendships are life affirming and I wouldn't be without them. But the three components that constitute an emotional affair are: 1. Secrecy, either about the existence of the friend or the content of your interactions. 2. Sexual chemistry and 3. When your friend knows more about your primary relationship than your partner knows about this friendship.

I don't have any opposite-sex friendships that fall into a category where all three components are present - and neither does my H. This isn't about having no friends of the opposite sex (or same-sex gay friends) at all, heaven forbid!

Finally, I think what always bears repeating on threads like these is that what ever lifestyle you adopt and believe will make you happy, you don't have the right to take away someone's choices by deceiving them and pretending you are still monogamous.

Ok so it's only the extreme monogamists that ban friends of the opposite sex, but they do exist. And the other big problem with the cult of monogamy (as opposed to monogamous people quietly and happily getting on with their own monogamous relationships, with which there is nothing wrong) is that people are often pushed into committing to monogamy much too soon - this idea that all sexual/romantic relationships have to follow this fast linear track from dating to sex to moving in to marriage/breeding. Lots of people are great fun, good to shag and spend some time with, but an absolute nightmare to live with. Lots of people would much rather live alone. But everywhere you go there is this pressure, particularly on women, to be in a committed longterm relationship or at least have the decency to be sad and ashamed and frantically seeking one, if you are single.
And monogamy isn't natural at all. Things that are natural, like sleeping, breathing and excreting, do not need to be enforced with propaganda and physical violence against thouse who do not engage in them.

Am following this discussion with real interest.

My own opinion is that as a species, humans do not seem to be particularly good at monogamy. I have often wondered whether it is a particularly natural state of affairs to 'mate for life.' I think we seem more naturally predisposed to serial monogamy i.e. having a few major relationships throughout our lives, aswell as the shorter less significant ones.

Having said all that, I do not wish to take away from those who have made monogamy work in their own relationships. I don't think monogamy is necessarily superior to any other mutually consenting set up, but I appreciate that it takes real committment and a preparedness to stick to your principles come what may. There's a lot to admire in that.

I think I'm definitely a serial monogomist, when I was younger and single that was OK, but as you become older it doesn't work as well. I hoped with my first marriage he would be the last bloke I'd love but when you do stop being in love with someone and start dreaming of freedom and being alone and fantasising about them having an RTA you know it's time to end the relationship.
You could go on in a sexless relationship as many do, but it seems a waste for both of you.
Now in my second marriage at lest we can talk about these feelings. I still think he's gorgeous but know there is a part of me that would love a new relationship, and he' screwed around less than meso feels a bit that way too. Neither of us wants another divorce though and we do get on really well and at least can talk about it.
Managing serial or some sort of open relationship without creating chaos for the adults and children involved is quite tricky.
We both worry that seeing other people would just kill our relationship.

Lenin: Well, it wouldn't be perfect, because nothing is. People would still on occasion be miserable because they wanted either sex or love from a person who was unwilling to give these things to them, or unwilling to continue doing so having done so in the past. But if it was just accepted that there was a range of equally valid options to choose from, there might be less unnecessary misery experienced by people who have found the one-size-must-fit-all model didn't actually fit them.
It might work out better for DC too, if people could see co-parenting as important but not indivisible from couplehood.

whenwill - I simply made the observation that not everyone adheres to complete honesty and trasparency in relationships and that people muddle through in their own way.

To be honest, I don't really care what other people do in their marriages and my observations are based more on wider social networks. Most of my close friends are in fairly unconventional set-ups which work for them and I would never interfere or pass judgements unless specifically asked.

I am making a point that what society deems as desirable - eg: lifelong monogamy - is not necessarily achievable. The fact that (some)people have got divorced, have affairs, swing and so on endorses this.

I find it interesting that there seems to be a view that swinging, for instance, with consent of both parties is acceptable. I can honestly say that I would be horrified if my partner suggested this and would be more understanding of him having an illicit affair!

I am a low risk person who likes security -that is the reason that I would not indulge in anything outside my marriage (but I don't think anyone can ever predict 100% what will happen in the future). It is not because of any moral code especially, as I can understand very well why people stray.In general I am quite honest so I would struggle with any major deception.

I don't think there is a solution particularly - some people achieve lifelong monogamy, some divorce, some swing etc. Whatever works for each couple I suppose.

I agree in principle to what you are saying about honesty - it is just that the evidence around me suggests that not everyone is playing by the same rules.

WWIFN - if you are having an "emotional affair" (whatever that means - I have a fairly Clintonesque view on adultery/infidelity) - why on earth would your point 3 be relevant? Why would you be discussing your primary relationship with someone that you found sexually attractive and were having a "secret relationship" with? Surely moaning about "him/her indoors" would do nothing to advance the relationship?

On the contrary, it does everything to further the relationship. If someone is bleating on about how his/her partner doesn't want sex, is children/golf obsessed or is simply a nice person who s/he has fallen out of love with, this creates a massive chink for a certain type of OW/OM who thinks that s/he can fill the gap.

"I reckon in an ideal world (ok mine), women would collectively raise the kids and men would come and go as they please, partnering up for the early years maybe. Everyone would be free to shag who they wanted when they wanted as long as the basic childcare was happening and there was food and shelter for all. This would all be in extended community groups with private living space too. I think it'd be great."

Lenin - me too! Have you read Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time. This is basically exactly what she describes. It is a brilliant book.

So then it would stop being an emotional affair and become a full on fuck fest? What if you keep it at an emotional level - ie you definitely have strong sexual chemistry but take the mutual decision to have a "no touching" policy? Is something like this - which can go on for years - worse than if you had a quick shag and got it out of your system and nothing said to either partner?

Lenin, yes, DD is obsessed with Octonauts too.

Do have a go at Woman on the Edge of Time some time, it's a lovely book. She describes a postgender world where there is no him/her, and everybody can choose to be a (non-bio) 'mother' at some stage of their life if they wish. It's really well thought through and deals with the ups and downs of non-monogamy very thoughtfully. (V. much along the lines of SGB's last post, actually.)

Too late to read but marking my place as it looks interesting...

Loved that book, read it over 20 years ago, wonder if I've still got it. Yes I have, must reread it.
Some bits were a bit fascist though, if I remember rightly if people in the community stole they got given stuff to fulfil their need or whatever, if they continued to be antisocial I think they got killed.
There was definitely zero tolerance for persistent offenders.
I may be confusing it with Paul Theroux's The O Zone though which i read at a similar time.
I always fancied a kibbutz type way of raising kids, but without the religion.
Reading "my life in orange" by Tim Guest made me realise that maybe communes, no property and no parents really loving you and cherishing you aren't that great for kids.
It should be possible for parents to split up and both keep up parenting the children though. I hate the term "lone parent" as it implies that if you split up only one of you is really a parent and the other parent ceases to matter. With serial monogamy the main challenge is continuing to coparent your children whilst moving on in your relationships.