Is there value in monogomy, beyond assuaging fear of abandonment?

[TooAccepting32]

I increasingly hear from people the argument that it's more "advanced" or "evolved" to be secure enough to be able to have an open relationship. They say that the reason people want monogomy is out of fear of abandonment, and that without that fear, we shouldn't require monogomy.

 

Monogomy is important to me... Yes, it makes me feel more secure, and in addition I think it's really special and part of what creates romance and bonding for me. Um... plus it keeps us safe from STDs.

 

Many people say I'm old fashioned and this idea is outdated.

 

 

What are your opinions on the benefits of monogomy?

[TaraMaiden]

As far as I am concerned, what outweighs monogamy, or any other type of relationship, is that the person is complete on their own, and doesn't need a significant other to validate them or make them feel whole.

 

Far better to be on your own, and absolutely content, happy and at peace with the way you are - alone - than to believe that a one-on-one relationship outweighs anything else.

[TooAccepting32]

Of course. Ideally that would be the goal before even being in a relationship. So for those who are complete on their own and do not need validation from their partner, what are some of the benefits of monogomy?

[fltc]

In today's world, one advantage of monogamy is continuing to live. With the current range of STD's multiple partners is a risk I'm not willing to take.

[Finch]

I feel monogamy has other advantages beyond some protection from STD's. Pair bonding brings us comfort and warmth and the benefit of having someone who understands and accepts us. When someone wants to be with only us we feel more confident. We know that whatever might happen in other areas of our lives there is someone who supports us and whom we can lean on. There are all sorts of studies out there that tout the benefits not just of monogamy but of marriage - that it helps people live longer, have stronger immune systems, lower rates from drug and alcohol abuse.

Some people prefer the polyamorous lifestyle and say that monogamy is boring, or that humans are animals and for reasons of genetic diversity humans are "meant" to have sex with many partners. That I find too simplistic -while we are animals, there are no other animals like us that we can compare to ourselves to as a control. We are constantly thinking and analyzing - sex for humans is NOT the same as sex for animals, and our relationships cannot be compared.

Sex in monogamy can be amazing, while I've always felt sex in casual relationship to be a little stressful. Since a huge portion of what constitutes good sex is mental, it makes sense that sex in a monogamous relationship can be better for a lot of people. You're no longer chasing sex. You know what the other person likes and wants, and you can ask for what you need.

 

I also don't really agree with the genetic diversity argument that some people claim as validation. I read an interesting article online a while ago about monogamy. The basic premise was that if we lived in a society that encouraged promiscuity, people would gravitate to the higher status partners - those we would consider the 8-10's. Everyone would always be trying to trade up, which would leave those in the bottom range without anyone at all. The high-status people would have their pick of multiple partners with whom to reproduce, while the rest would be alone. High-status men would have access to all the females, and high-status women would only accept the highest status men. That means we'd begin to see something akin to the founder effect in societies - the dominant genetic traits would eventually be those of the powerful few. Lots of sex for some, none for others. Doesn't sounds like my idea of utopia at all.

 

So anyway. Monogamy: I'm a fan.

[carhill]

Never had fear of abandonment and happily lived alone for many years.

 

Main value for myself was having a singular entity to focus the gist of my love on; one who proactively professed their apparent desire and value for same.

 

There are many manifestations of this love which could be enumerated and are specific to each of us. The two I can take away from my M, if I had to name two, would be appreciation of my value as a human being and confidence that my mate has my back. The kind of investment we make in each other, to the exclusion of all others, is elemental to us. It goes to the core of who we are as humans. It is our priority.

[TigerCub]

I'm one that wants monogamy if in a meaningful relationship with someone I love. (to be truthful, I admit that if we're together for many many years and we wanted to explore something else, I wouldn't automatically rule out an open relationship) but for now, yes, I'm pro monogamy.

 

I also don't really agree with the genetic diversity argument that some people claim as validation. I read an interesting article online a while ago about monogamy. The basic premise was that if we lived in a society that encouraged promiscuity, people would gravitate to the higher status partners - those we would consider the 8-10's. Everyone would always be trying to trade up, which would leave those in the bottom range without anyone at all. The high-status people would have their pick of multiple partners with whom to reproduce, while the rest would be alone. High-status men would have access to all the females, and high-status women would only accept the highest status men. That means we'd begin to see something akin to the founder effect in societies - the dominant genetic traits would eventually be those of the powerful few. Lots of sex for some, none for others. Doesn't sounds like my idea of utopia at all.

 

So anyway. Monogamy: I'm a fan.

 

Isn't that just survival of the fittest?

 

Besides though, I really doubt that the "uglies" wouldn't be having sex - they'd screw each other - they would know that they can't get the powerful elite and they would settle for each other.

Beggars can't be choosers.

 

And honestly, what you described above doesn't sound like its too far off from what the world is like now.

 

If it is - please explain to me how Hugh Hefner, or Donald Trump are still getting laid - because if it aint money + viagra - I have no idea.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I've heard that argument from swingers and such for quite awhile. Everyone likes to justify their experiences and choices somehow. I suppose it works for some. Mostly I've observed open relationships to be somewhat transitional. They don't want to "cheat" and so justify this other lifestyle. Usually one person or the other falls in love with the person they are having their open relationship with, and the whole thing falls apart. It kind of becomes like the job search where your current employer knows you are looking and gives you references...

 

All relationships have rules... even "open" ones. I decided long ago that drawing the line on sex was just a whole lot easier, and more suitable for me.

 

I want to invest my time and energy in someone who wants to invest in me. That includes sex and everything that comes with it. I prefer not to worry about all the complications that come with all of these extra people. Besides, the reality is almost always never as good as the fantasy. Why mess up a good thing?

 

Monogamy for me.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

I increasingly hear from people the argument that it's more "advanced" or "evolved" to be secure enough to be able to have an open relationship. They say that the reason people want monogomy is out of fear of abandonment, and that without that fear, we shouldn't require monogomy.

 

 

 

You're listening to idiots!!! (Any freaking PENGUIN can tell you that...)

 

Those people are the equivalent to those from whom you hear that pot isn't addictive and that pot is harmless. They in both cases are merely trying to justify their own unhealthy behavior by feeding you a line of crap.

 

It doesn't help the rest of society when you believe it.

[rafallus]

I increasingly hear from people the argument that it's more "advanced" or "evolved" to be secure enough to be able to have an open relationship. They say that the reason people want monogomy is out of fear of abandonment, and that without that fear, we shouldn't require monogomy.

 

Sure. It evolves from "fear of abandonment" to "certainity of abandonment, sooner or later".

[OldOnTheInside]

I increasingly hear from people the argument that it's more "advanced" or "evolved" to be secure enough to be able to have an open relationship. They say that the reason people want monogomy is out of fear of abandonment, and that without that fear, we shouldn't require monogomy.

They are entitled to their opinion, and you are entitled to yours. However, it is a ridiculously unrealistic assumption IMO. If a large part of a marriage consists of fear of abandonment, open or closed relationship, it's in a pretty bad state anyway.

 

For me, fear had nothing to do with it. I considered myself to be a bit of a bit of a cynic when it comes to relationships in general. I wasn't really looking for anything but as soon as I met my now ex-wife, I apparently found out I wasn't such a cynic afterall.

 

Main value for myself was having a singular entity to focus the gist of my love on; one who proactively professed their apparent desire and value for same.

 

There are many manifestations of this love which could be enumerated and are specific to each of us. The two I can take away from my M, if I had to name two, would be appreciation of my value as a human being and confidence that my mate has my back. The kind of investment we make in each other, to the exclusion of all others, is elemental to us. It goes to the core of who we are as humans. It is our priority.

Ditto on most of that.

 

I have noticed that the general opinion among many polygamous couples is that "sex isn't love". From there, I can assume that some monogamous couples see a large correlation between sex and love. It is quite a romantic ideal.

 

It's just one of those things that neither side will understand until they've tried it. Not that they have to of course.

[oldguy]

To add; historically, and lets be clear, open relationships are nothing new to humankind, open relationships have not worked well long term socially and may even be the reason societies have established taboos against them. It seems most of us find security in small groups and intimacy in monogamy. In fact our social groups, neighborhoods, (tribes), work best when they do not exceed 28 adults and then of course those groups can belong to other groups, like clubs, neighborhoods and the like but the individual members of one group having only casual contact with a member of an adjoining group. I know I studied all this stuff in first or second year social psychology some 30 plus years ago I just don't recall much more than the gist of it this early. Basically, it's been tried throughout humankind, it really does't work but small groups continue to believe they've stumbled upon something new & revolutionary about every other generation or so. None of the grandiose communes of the late 1960's ever succeed either.

Edited June 22, 2011 by oldguy