I think people who like ideas like polyamory have misconstrued notions about what monogamy is, which is a general cultural problem in western societies these days.
I don't own my partner and she doesn't own me. I give myself freely to her and she does the same. It's not about expectation, but commitment. I promise her she's the only one for me, despite my very human desires, and she promises me the same thing. This is healthier than the pervasive "ownership" mental model, because we both very much are aware that we have human and animal desire, and understand that the commitment is freely given. We don't get mad at each other for being attracted to other people, and feel no jealousy, we would feel betrayed if the other broke the commitment, because we were promised something by the other.
The idea that monogamy is the default in relationships outside of marriage is a very new thing in US culture. There was a time, not so long ago, when the point at which monogamy began was marriage, or for some, engagement. Needing to define being single in over convoluted terms like "polyamory" is a bit ridiculous.
I've always been very casual about these things with partners. Some can't handle it, they're jealous by nature or something. Usually, being clear "we aren't committed until we talk about that and commit" is a pretty easy to digest thing for people, even if they default to the opposite usually.
On a less personal note, it's no coincidence I think that the most successful cultures in the world were and are monogamous by social expectation. Polyamorous social structures are not conducive to responsibility with regard to rearing children, and are more often than not to leave women in a difficult position. As such, women expect commitment from men where there are few options to prevent pregnancy. That's not to say anything about the spread of disease. Jealousy is still a problem, and leads to conflict. Polygamous social structures, the second most successful of the reproduction/sex oriented social structures, lead to swathes of unmarried men, and you get rejections from the tribe, hostile takeovers, warlike cultures designed to dispose of the men who will not hope to reproduce. Monogamy is the stable arrangement and it shows. Other more exotic complex social arrangements tend to be very niche, small tribal groups relegated to basically Africa, and don't scale well.
I think if young people want to have fun, do it, be clear, if someone doesn't like it that's their decision to not participate. But slapping labels on it like it's some revolution in sexual dynamics is silly. Be prepared to outgrow your exploration, read the allegory of Chesterton's fence to understand why.
Well said, monogamy is a structure for producing a stable child rearing environment — and by relation a stable society. It is entirely consensual where arranged marriages no longer take place.
I have no issues how people screw each other but monogamy has a purpose, and if your purpose is to raise a stable family your odds are best if you pursue monogamy.
Monogamy is one such structure. It seems very tied to the modern idea of the "nuclear family." There are others. Having an extended family all living together is another. Tribes where children are raised communally is another.
Communal living is highly overrated. If you're a young and capable person you'll be shouldered with responsibility and live under the thumb of your elders. Not a dignified existence. I barely tolerate my own parents, I will not tolerate my extended family demanding things from me.
It's highly underrated by young people who don't like the idea of living with their parents. Ultimately, the cost of this is shouldered by day care fees, parental leave, social security checks we cut to old people, and less efficient living spaces; problems which were ok in an era of gdp and population growth, but in the era of stagnation? We'll see.
> Having an extended family all living together is another.
Collectivism has clear benefits but comes at a steep price: the need to establish and enforce group norms. The nuclear family seems like a compromise in this space, a revealed preference.
I mean, I would probably be happy living like an Orca in a matrilineal family group but, then again, I've always gotten along with my Mom. What about the people who haven't? Or who only started to once they moved out? Those people would be faced with living in a disharmonious environment or leaving to a world hostile to individuals.
You are taking effective birth control completely for granted.
It wasn't that long ago that monogamy was the default because no one wants to have a baby from a night of netflix and chill.
IMO you have the direction of causation backwards. Monogamy is not some child rearing optimization strategy. It was a social construct that evolved because causual sex at one point was incredibly expensive and now it is not because of birth control.
I can't imagine going to my theorerical wife-in-open-monogamy-relationship and tell her that the girl I had sex with at work's Christmas party gave me std because, despite she had her pills, but the rubber fell. It's just not mixing up in my head.
Also, if I give myself to my wife as a whole (i.e. I take care of her, the home and the children) I do not have time really to have another affairs. The rest of the time I'm left with I either sacrifice to be with her or have my own time like play games or compose music. There are lots of things to be done really, and I couldn't imagine sacrificing my family and duties to pursue sexual satisfaction with other people outside of my family.
> I do not have time really to have another affairs.
That's a good point, and true of most people I expect. The wealthy have time, though. Wealth buys time. Kings, the epitome of being wealthy historically, have always had time for affairs, and are oft remembered for exactly that(!), but a growing proportion of "common folk" are becoming increasingly wealthy themselves, freeing up the necessary time among more and more people. However, wealth inequality is high, so the opportunity of time is not evenly distributed.
> Monogamy is not some child rearing optimization strategy.
Can you go into this a little more? Is there evidence (either way) that stable 2-parent households are or aren't better for kids, or that an alternative is better?
Similar to comments above there's a difference between poly and open. I've not tried either but I've multiple good friends who are in "monogamish" relationships and it seems to work pretty well. For them the non-monogomy is just fun they have with others, but ultimately their partnership comes first. Otherwise it's very similar to the monogamy you describe but with agreed exceptions to sexual exclusivity.
It's not for everyone and it takes a lot communication (and low levels of jealousy) but it seems to work well at providing the structure and stability of marriage without forcing the full sexual exclusivity that some find constricting.
Why does their partnership come first? Whats stopping you from finding somebody better to make a priority? Isn’t that the point of being poly is to have the ability to shop around?
It takes work, for both people to compromise, to critically self-evaluate and improve.
When it's easy to just "shop around", you never really have to look hard in the mirror. It's easier to just internally assign blame to the other person: "they're not meeting my needs", and go off seeking someone else who will.
There's value in resilience, in building up your character so that you can endure turmoil.
All relationships have stormy times.
A key facet of emotional maturity is to be able to distinguish climate from weather.
People nowadays don't want commitment, and when they have it they don't respect it anyway.
I think this attitude will sooner or later change back, when the bill will come due. Life is full of challenges and hardships, and having somebody you committed to and who's committed does help deal with stuff.
I think the raise in popularity of polyamory is largely a proxy measure for the raise in selfishness.
Where I am from marriage is forever and there is no way to dissolve it without burning in eternal fire - it’s very much about ownership.
Kudos on you to having a modern marriage but marriage in the past (and also now) also is about ownership.
It’s a literal contract between two people and you are legally obligated to take care of the other person.
This was... the US, Britain, etc for many years and much of the middle east and parts of them and Asia today.
Women just aren't in control of their lives and personhood in so many ways under even modern marriage law. I believe it's still problematic in some US states and I know it's problematic in many places that we might even consider "civilized" where a woman cannot bring her husband for divorce, the husband must bring his wife for divorce. There are still places in the "civilized" world where it is considered legal for a man to force himself upon his wife against her will or enact violence upon her if she does not submit.
Beyond that, there is an assumption in some layers of society that women will marry and have no autonomy over their lives.
A good friend of mine in the early 90s faced extreme issue closing the joint account between her and her (recently deceased) husband. She was told that she needed her husband's "written and notarized approval" to take any action against the account, even though she was listed as the primary contact on the account because the system enforced that only male account holders were allowed to make changes. In fact, this system didn't allow a single woman to open a bank account until 1992!
Another friend of mine has been attempting to get a hysterectomy voluntarily (every woman on her mother's side has developed cervical cancer in the last 4 generations), has no interest in ever having a child or getting married to a man for that matter, and has faced numerous doctors who will not even hear her out because "what if her future husband wants kids" just absolutely stalls the conversation. She has recently gotten further by having a local wiccan coven write some bullshit on paper that it's her "religious duty to nature" to have this happen, which has at least gotten a few doctors to read and go "I'll have to check in on this."
Just this year, American women in the south were reminded that their vote is just as secret as their husband's. This spurred a wave of men who began calling for the stripping of the rights of women because they might vote differently than their husbands.
I'm well aware of US history. It's just that I'd rather not go back decades and certainly not centuries. Thankfully honor killings and FGM are quite rare in my part of the Midwest US, for now at least.
I don't own my partner and she doesn't own me. I give myself freely to her and she does the same. It's not about expectation, but commitment. I promise her she's the only one for me, despite my very human desires, and she promises me the same thing. This is healthier than the pervasive "ownership" mental model, because we both very much are aware that we have human and animal desire, and understand that the commitment is freely given. We don't get mad at each other for being attracted to other people, and feel no jealousy, we would feel betrayed if the other broke the commitment, because we were promised something by the other.
The idea that monogamy is the default in relationships outside of marriage is a very new thing in US culture. There was a time, not so long ago, when the point at which monogamy began was marriage, or for some, engagement. Needing to define being single in over convoluted terms like "polyamory" is a bit ridiculous.
I've always been very casual about these things with partners. Some can't handle it, they're jealous by nature or something. Usually, being clear "we aren't committed until we talk about that and commit" is a pretty easy to digest thing for people, even if they default to the opposite usually.
On a less personal note, it's no coincidence I think that the most successful cultures in the world were and are monogamous by social expectation. Polyamorous social structures are not conducive to responsibility with regard to rearing children, and are more often than not to leave women in a difficult position. As such, women expect commitment from men where there are few options to prevent pregnancy. That's not to say anything about the spread of disease. Jealousy is still a problem, and leads to conflict. Polygamous social structures, the second most successful of the reproduction/sex oriented social structures, lead to swathes of unmarried men, and you get rejections from the tribe, hostile takeovers, warlike cultures designed to dispose of the men who will not hope to reproduce. Monogamy is the stable arrangement and it shows. Other more exotic complex social arrangements tend to be very niche, small tribal groups relegated to basically Africa, and don't scale well.
I think if young people want to have fun, do it, be clear, if someone doesn't like it that's their decision to not participate. But slapping labels on it like it's some revolution in sexual dynamics is silly. Be prepared to outgrow your exploration, read the allegory of Chesterton's fence to understand why.