10 Reasons Monogamy Is Impossible

[futurelegend]

10 Reasons Monogamy Is Impossible

No. 1. Madonna. She is working her way through the world's male population, and I want to be ready when she gets to me.

No. 2. Most people agree that it's impossible, so I must be right. According to David Barash, PhD, a University of Washington zoologist, and Judith Eve Lipton, a Redmond psychiatrist, coauthors of The Myth of Monogamy, monogamy is relatively rare in human societies. In study after study, Barash and Dr. Lipton write, researchers have overwhelmingly found that monogamous relations are more the exception than the rule.

No. 3. Almost all other animals think it's impossible too. We now know, thanks to DNA fingerprinting, that many species once thought to be paragons of monogamous virtue are actually hard-core philanderers. Researching hundreds of creatures, ranging from orangutans to red-winged blackbirds to rats, Barash and Dr. Lipton found widespread evidence of infidelity. In all, they say, out of about 4,000 mammal species, only 3 percent form "reliable pair-bonds."

No. 4. Have you ever just stood on a street corner and watched all the incredibly sexy women walk by, one after another after another? Black women, white women, brown women, Asian women, women from France and England and Germany and Ghana and Mongolia and Bogota, New Jersey...?

No. 5. If people are monogamous, the species could completely die out. It's true, yo. Being slutty is the least you can do for mankind. Mating with multiple partners makes the species more genetically diverse and therefore more resistant to disease.

No. 6. It's better for your prostate to ejaculate in or on the greatest variety of women. (Although I don't have conclusive evidence to back this up, I know it intuitively.)

No. 7. Seriously, have you ever stood on a street corner and just watched the procession of succulent women saunter by? Hedge-fund managers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, curators, hookers, jockeys...

No. 8. The Declaration of Independence specifically guarantees the "pursuit of happiness," which implicitly rules out monogamy.

No. 9. Seeing the exact same female body day after day for 10, 15, 20, 30 years can seriously damage your eyes.

No. 10. For God's sake, Goldberg, think of all the different women out there — panting, moaning, groaning, screaming women. Don't you crave every single part of them? Their feet, their armpits, the napes of their necks, their beautiful, mournful eyes? Monogamy? C'mon, man! Are you out of your f — king mind?

http://healthandfitness.sympatico.m...ine=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False

 

[james t kirk]

I think you're preaching to the choir on this board....

 

[RTRD]

LOL...funny...

....and yeah...man...there are lots of very good looking women at there.

Lucky for me (her?), they have no interest in me.

Seriously though...I was stone cold monogamous with wife number one for 2 years of dating and ten years of marriage. I didn't become the man I am today (as I cast my eyes downward in shame), until I didn't get what I wanted out of my first marriage ( a family and the white picket fence), and decided that I just wasn't going to deny myself no matter what in hopes of it being appreciated.

For years (some) women have maintained that marriage is a bad deal for them. I can see how that was the case for many, many years - a woman gave up her identity and personal freedom to get the "security" from a man she could have provided herself. And in exchange for that security, that man expected near (or sometimes actual or even complete) servitude.

Now though...with women being equal in virtually all aspects of society...and perfectly capable of providing security for themselves, they aren't as inclined to just tow the company line. Which is fine...we can be equals....except there is this one thing:

Most women want and expect fidelity. Most men aren't inclined to provide it (60+ percent of men cheat). Of course, 40% of women cheat as well, so perhaps the real issue is the denial and the lack of honestly, clarity and authenticity.

I think it is possible...fiedelity. But I think for it to REALLY work, you can't be so much faithful to a person as faithful to a concept or idea. For example, during the 12 years I spoke to above with wife #1, I was what many people would call a "religious" man. I was committed to my faith more so than my wife. And my faith did not permit infidelity.

Additionally, I think it is overrated. I think RESPECT is more important than fidelity. The simple litmus test often used is to ask someone if they are (or were) perfectly happy in their relationship...and then found out their spouse had been unfaithful. Did that mean they weren't really happy yesterday, last week, last year after all?

 

[jwmorrice]

The simple litmus test often used is to ask someone if they are (or were) perfectly happy in their relationship...and then found out their spouse had been unfaithful. Did that mean they weren't really happy yesterday, last week, last year after all?

It puts all that went before in a new context and, of course, the meaning for them is going to change.

jwm

 

[RTRD]

And that is..

It puts all that went before in a new context and, of course, the meaning for them is going to change.

jwm

...what I am often told by the women who I have asked that...but that just doesn't make sense to me.

Were you happy? Yes or no? if you were...you were. If you are not now...why not? Just because you now know something that existed before but did not keep you from being happy before? Just KNOWING means you are unhappy?

Doesn't make sense to me...but then again I've never felt the need to "own" a person. I've never been possessive...ever. Even back in HS and college....sometimes it would piss of my GFs...they want a man to possess" them as proof that he cares.

 

[jwmorrice]

The events of the past may be fixed but how we interpret them is ever changing and depends where we are in the present.

A man is upset because he misses a plane. The plane he missed crashes. Now he's happy. Is he still going to sue the limousine service?

Or think of the quote from Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

jwm

 

[RTRD]

He is happy now...

The events of the past may be fixed but how we interpret them is ever changing and depends where we are in the present.

A man is upset because he misses a plane. The plane he missed crashes. Now he's happy. Is he still going to sue the limousine service?

Or think of the quote from Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

jwm

...but he STILL wasn't happy then. And if he thinks he should sue the limousine company for his being late (pretty stupid), then he should. He WAS late....even if being late benefited him.

I understand what you are saying - I am just saying that my mind doesn't work that way. But I do concede that for many people it does...which is more my over arching point. It is irrational...but common...human behavior and thought processes.

 

[jwmorrice]

I understand what you are saying - I am just saying that my mind doesn't work that way. But I do concede that for many people it does...which is more my over arching point. It is irrational...but common...human behavior and thought processes.

Irrational? I think not. We do, afterall, live in the present, not in bits of the past. Histories are written now, not then, and always with a purpose, whether consciously articulated or not. I don't know you and I'm not trying to go ad hominem on you but one could even suggest that your privileging of the past serves a need in the present, perhaps letting yourself off some hook.

Coming at matters from a somewhat different direction, it has to be noted that even our perceptions are shot through with meanings. They are the result of a top-down process. There are no bits standing in splendid isolation. People see and remember in terms of patterns or Gestalts.

Little wonder then that a woman, or anyone, would reinterpret earlier events after a betrayal.

jwm

 

[genintoronto]

I think that in our current social context, monogamy is actually easier to maintain than polyamory. We are all socialized into monogamy and its associated ideas (such as the belief in The One, or the idea that 'real' love=exclusivity).

Monogamy gives us a 'false' sense of security in the sense that we measure the love of our partner from their (lack of) commitment to remain monogamous: if my partner doesn't fuck other people, than it must mean that s/he loves me.

But when you decide to let go of monogamy, you actually have to do the work that monogamy would do for you. You have to do the work to make your partner(s) feel loved, special, and secure enough to not feel threatened by another partner. You also have to do the work to un-learn what you have been taught about love, relationship, and intimacy. For instance, jealousy won't suddenly disappear because you've decided to be polyamorous. But you need to re-learn how to deal with it in a polyamorous context.

From my experience, most people -- women and men alike -- aren't prepared, willing, or mature enough to do that work.

 

[RTRD]

I've been told this...

I think that in our current social context, monogamy is actually easier to maintain than polyamory. We are all socialized into monogamy and its associated ideas (such as the belief in The One, or the idea that 'real' love=exclusivity).

Monogamy gives us a 'false' sense of security in the sense that we measure the love of our partner from their (lack of) commitment to remain monogamous: if my partner doesn't fuck other people, than it must mean that s/he loves me.

But when you decide to let go of monogamy, you actually have to do the work that monogamy would do for you. You have to do the work to make your partner(s) feel loved, special, and secure enough to not feel threatened by another partner. You also have to do the work to un-learn what you have been taught about love, relationship, and intimacy. For instance, jealousy won't suddenly disappear because you've decided to be polyamorous. But you need to re-learn how to deal with it in a polyamorous context.

From my experience, most people -- women and men alike -- aren't prepared, willing, or mature enough to do that work.

..by people who are polyamorous that I know.

It wouldn't work for me. I don't share well. I am just not that grown up.

What I am saying is that fidelity...in and of itself...doesn't have much value to me. As long as it doesn't impact ME...why do I care if my SO had a hot fuck on a business trip with some guy she isn't going to see again?

The problem is the respect part...people who cheat SELDOM actual do so in the sort of respectful manner that ALWAYS places their primary (and ideally only) relationship FIRST.

 

[RTRD]

Living in the present...

Irrational? I think not. We do, afterall, live in the present, not in bits of the past. Histories are written now, not then, and always with a purpose, whether consciously articulated or not. I don't know you and I'm not trying to go ad hominem on you but one could even suggest that your privileging of the past serves a need in the present, perhaps letting yourself off some hook.

Coming at matters from a somewhat different direction, it has to be noted that even our perceptions are shot through with meanings. They are the result of a top-down process. There are no bits standing in splendid isolation. People see and remember in terms of patterns or Gestalts.

Little wonder then that a woman, or anyone, would reinterpret earlier events after a betrayal.

jwm

...doesn't change the past.

To me, if you were happy, there isn't anything to "interpret".

You ride a roller coaster. You have a blast. Six month later, your kid dies riding a roller coaster. Quite understandably, you aren't going near a roller coaster. That doesn't mean you didn't have fun six months ago.

The past isn't changed by the present. And the need to "interpret" the past is pretty much the irrational behavior I am speaking of. Common to humans, I know, but I fail to see where it serves any positive purpose.

Then again, I am pretty much a black or white kinda guy. Which also sometimes gets me in trouble.

 

[jwmorrice]

...doesn't change the past.

To me, if you were happy, there isn't anything to "interpret".

You were happy about things then because of the interpretation you put on events then. That's always going to be open to revision, 5 minutes, 5 hours, or 5 years later, with the addition of more or different information.

jwm

 

[RTRD]

Which still...

You were happy about things then because of the interpretation you put on events then. That's always going to be open to revision, 5 minutes, 5 hours, or 5 years later, with the addition of more or different information.

jwm

...doesn't mean you weren't happy THEN.

Just because you NOW aren't happy about what happened THEN doesn't mean you weren't happy THEN.

Which speaks to my point that "interpretation" serves no purpose. Why fuck up positive memories of being happy?

If what you don’t know won't hurt you (speaking literarily in this case, and not asserting that that is always or even mostly the case), what the fuck is the point of knowing? So you can get hurt? Do we want that?

Information, in these cases, serves to get ahead of FURTHER hurt...or in anticipation of down the road consequences, in attempt to spare yourself from later hurt. I am not saying that for most cases of infidelity, there would not be some value to the injured party knowing the truth...because, hell...usually they get injured.

I am saying the infidelity ITSELF isn't what causes the harm. It is (usually) the lack of respect that goes along with it. That, and the assumption that you are SUPPOSED to be unhappy about it...because...well...you are supposed to be...

For example - wife number two would periodically make the mistake of telling her friends that not only did she not mind me going to strip clubs every once in awhile, but she actually liked it. Her GFs, as you could guess, were almost always mortified. My soon 2bx would always respond "Why? He always comes back horny and wanting to fuck, tasting of expensive cigars and vodka. They do the work...I get the benefits". They felt she should object because...that is what wives are suppose to do. My wife not only saw no harm, but saw benefit. My being at the SC...in and of itself...did not in any way cause her any harm.

I'd argue infidelity is the same, while again stating that typically there are actions and behaviors ASOCIATED with infidelity that clearly do cause harm.

 

[dreamblade]

As much as I agree with the original post, there's something I think I should point out:

1) There are multiple forms of ethical non-monogamy: commited non-monogamy, swinging, polyamory, polyfidelity, and solo-poly. All these do require thinking outside the box we've been told exists and inventing our relationships as we move through life (as genintoronto said, it takes effort)

2) People evolve, grow and change. They can move from non-monogamy to monogamy to another form of non-monogamy, depending on their situation. When I moved to TO 3 years ago and getting settled, I was quite happy just being with my gf at the time, while she had 3 other lovers, 2 male, one female.

3) We're constantly pushed to get the new shiny. Better cars, cooler phones, the latest clothes, yet that yearning for the new is to be suppressed if you're in a relationship and find a new person you connect with. Kinda hypocritical.

4) I think the next sexual revolution, now that pre-marital sex and gay coupling is mostly accepted, will deal with the acceptance of non-monogamy. Give it 15 years or so.

 

[RTRD]

See...

When I moved to TO 3 years ago and getting settled, I was quite happy just being with my gf at the time, while she had 3 other lovers, 2 male, one female.

...I COMPLETELY understand that.

I just have no need to "own" anyone else. If I am happy, I am happy.

I am 95% sure my GF isn't seeing anyone else. But...I don't see her as often as I like, and I don't feel we are as connected as we should be for the level of commitment she wants from me. But as I stated above, I could see how she is just holding the last bit out, waiting until neither of us is married to other people (legally). I can see that.

By comparison, I feel as connected as I want to be with my FWB. I could care less if she is seeing anyone else. Indeed, I KNOW she dates other people.

Now, if I didn't have my GF...I'd be perfectly happy with just my FWB...and still wouldn't ask her for exclusivity (well...let me clarify...I wouldn't be perfectly happy as in promising monogamy...I am saying I wouldn't be asking any more of her...more commitment, whatever. I'd be happy with my relationship with her being my PRIMARY relationship, but not necessarily my only)

The FWB and I were talking about our situation the other day...she was saying how this is a first for her....and how totally surprised she is at how cool she is with it. I said this to her - "How I feel about you is not dependent on how you feel about anyone else. How you feel about someone else might influence how you feel about me...and how you feel about me DEFINITELY influences how I feel about you. But your feelings for someone else do not come into play for me". Her response was sort of a "yeah....I get that...you are right"...and then she said something about how mature and enlightened that perspective was. Whatever - I'm just saying that if I am happy, I am happy - it isn't dependent on what happens outside of my scope of reality.

 

[jwmorrice]

Just because you NOW aren't happy about what happened THEN doesn't mean you weren't happy THEN.

Which speaks to my point that "interpretation" serves no purpose. Why fuck up positive memories of being happy?

An interpretation or perspective on events is inevitable and not necessarily some conscious add-on. It is part of who we are and we are of the present. The past no longer is except as a part of the present, except as how we now project ourselves into it or carry it with us. In the face of betrayal, the meaning of 'happiness then' thus can easily change to something darker like 'I was a trusting fool then'.

I don't think there's much more I can say on this topic so I'll try to presently(!) just leave it there.

jwm

 

[JD75]

I think RESPECT is more important than fidelity.

I don't think you can have respect with infidelity. I would agree that respect is more important than a monogamous relationship, but once the other person is in the dark about what's actually going on, you're not showing them any respect at all. For anyone who thinks they should be respected in return (for infidelity) is a dumbass.

 

[RTRD]

I...

but once the other person is in the dark about what's actually going on, you're not showing them any respect at all.

...completely disagree, for reasons noted else where, but what you are saying here is in fact the reason why ideally people should be open, honest and tranparent and just acknowledge that few people are going to be monogamous for the entirity of a relationship, and instead focus on how such "infidelity" can be managed to everyones statisfaction.

Or, in other words...it isn't the "cheating" that is the problem...it is the way it is done.

 

[JD75]

it wouldn't be "cheating" if the other person was ok with it. that's being in mutual non-monogamous & transparent relationship. that isn't what I was saying.
what I'm saying is that infidelity (aka cheating) is when one person doesn't know about it and is thus being lied to. if you're lying to your partner, you can't say you respect them. that is what I'm saying.

 

[King Midas]

...completely disagree, for reasons noted else where, but what you are saying here is in fact the reason why ideally people should be open, honest and tranparent and just acknowledge that few people are going to be monogamous for the entirity of a relationship, and instead focus on how such "infidelity" can be managed to everyones statisfaction.

Or, in other words...it isn't the "cheating" that is the problem...it is the way it is done.

Monogamy isn't a state of being. It's a decision you make. Either you're going to be monogamous or you're not.

If you pledge fidelity to your partner and break your promise or change your views and don't share that with your partner, that is cheating. If you're married, that's called adultery. Do you really imagine you can manage adultery "to everyone's satisfaction"?

Transparency would be admitting to anyone you're interested in fucking long-term that you are not going to be monogamous and let them decide if they want to continue seeing you under those terms. That would be authentic and honest. Agreeing to something you're not really interested in? That's lying to get what you want. Also know as manipulation and we all do that to some extent. But call it what it is