But I support couples who choose to be monogamous. It’s an unnatural lifestyle, and it’s definitely choice I wouldn’t make, but I don’t believe that couples who make the choice to be monogamous should be discriminated against in any way. They should be allowed to have children and adopt, for instance. I’d even go so far as to say that monogamous couples should be allowed to marry—legally marry—even though adultery rates and divorce statistics demonstrate that making sexual exclusivity a defining characteristic of marriage is destabilizing and often leads to divorce. And divorce is bad for children born to monogamous couples, married or not.
These thoughts—concessions, really, to an increasingly visible and politically assertive monogamous community—were prompted by an atypically fair and balanced article on the subject of monogamy that appeared on CNN’s website earlier this week. “Is Monogamy Realistic?” The answer, according to the experts quoted, was “NO.”
“It’s realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language,” said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.
Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, “It’s within the realm of human potential, but it’s not easy.”
Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of “Strange Bedfellows” and “The Myth of Monogamy,” said serial monogamy may be more realistic—a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.
I would argue that serial monogamy also has its limitations: a strictly monogamous couple that might be great together and doing a great job raising kids may be prompted by sexual boredom or alienation—a circumstance that could be temporary—to part ways in pursuit of sexual satisfaction. A little leeway, a discreet sumpun on the side now and then, could help countless otherwise solid marriages survive a sexually fallow period.
Those quibbles aside, A. Pawlowki’s article was remarkable for its willingness to tell CNN readers—many of whom have succumbed to the PC monogamy police—the truth about monogamy: human beings aren’t naturally monogamous and monogamy is a struggle and many marriages crack under the strain of a monogamous commitment. It was a levelheaded, bracing piece of reporting—it was almost brave. I say “almost brave” because Pawlowski chickened out at the last minute and gave the final few graphs of his piece over to the rantings of one of those monoganazis who wants to shove her unnatural lifestyle down all of our throats:
Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. “People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner,” Kaslow said.
It’s sad that monogamists can only defend their unnatural lifestyle choices by tearing down those of us who are in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships. Monogamy is great, Ms. Kaslow asserts, because people in monogamous relationships feel safe and can trust and depend on their spouses. The implication, of course, is that people in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships don’t feel safe and can’t trust or depend on our spouses. Well, Ms. Kaslow, I feel safer in my honestly non-monogamous relationship than Jenny Sanford had a right to feel in her dishonestly “monogamous” relationship; my honest non-monogamous husband is more trustworthy than Elizabeth Edwards’ “monogamous” husband; and my non-monogamous husband has certainly proven himself to be more dependable than Suzanne Craig’s “monogamous” husband.
Again, I’m all for equal marriage rights for people who make monogamous commitments, despite their terrible track record. But the monogamous have to find a way to discuss their unnatural lifestyle choices that doesn’t amount to an attack on those who made a more natural choice.
Monogamy wasn’t a “rule” until very recently. Hell, up until the mid- to late-1900s, it was expected of men to take on other women (or men!) for trysts. And in the colonial era? Oh man, don’t get me started.
@2: Well, don’t forget the women were still expected to be monogamous.
GREAT post, Dan. I agree 100%. I only wish you had a column in the NYT, or another widely read paper, because you’ are one of the only rational, intelligent voices out there and more people than just Slog readers need to hear it!
Evolutionary biology correlates that are NOT associated with monogamy:
In humans (of course, these rules apply to other species),
-Body size differences between males/females = polygynous mating system
-Relative to the rest our our closest primate relatives = huge sperm count and huge penis size (sperm competition theory)
-Hidden menstruation by females keeps males guessing about paternity (ensures care by multiple males and limits infanticide)
-Our closest relative, Bonobos, use sex to maintain social structure and resolve disputes.
so what’s the prevalence of non-honest non-monogamous relationships? Are there any numbers out there to support a contention that non-monogamous relationships are more honest? That’s not snark, it’s a real question since I think the long term success issue is really about honesty, not monogamy per se… because long term honesty is likely at least as tough as long term monogamy.
Thank you for the concessions and respect, Dan. I’m touched. 😉
You won’t hear me arguing for or against monogamy. Both sets of my grandparents are about to celebrate 70 (seventy) years of marriage. One couple monogamous, the other was not. Both marriages successfully built a life together, survived WW II, raised families, and most importantly they consider themselves blessed to be with each other. Exclusiveness need not be some pillar or inflated into the defining status, mutual respect and agreement seems to be the key to determining if a marriage succeeds or not.
@6, rock on, kim. Thanks for cooling it out as usual.
To highlight one of Dan’s Points… the last line of article: “there are lots of reasons that two people who cooperate are better off than one person alone or one person who is a cheat” Is offered in support of monogamy, but is not inherently about monogamy, but rather “two people who cooperate”. Two people that may or may not be monogamous.
If monogamy were a natural aspect of humanity, sexual jealousy would not exist.
I view monogamy in the same way that I view religion–it works for some people (not all), and it provides a stability needed by some (not all). It’s something you choose to do, and it is often difficult to healthily maintain.
But it is not natural in that it is not instinctual. If it were, mated humans would not sexually consider partners outside their relationships.
Have you ever gotten therapy after your parents’ divorce?
You always sound so bitter and childish about monogamy.
It’s just another form of relationship.
I’m with you though on the whole notion about how stupid it is to build it up as somehow superior…..
Sure, monogamy isn’t for everyone but to call it unnatural is incendiary. It’s such a loaded and not-understood word anyway. I mean technically I’d be happy in what I would call a modified-monogamy relationship, because I’d want my partner present for extracurricular activities. Compared to most partnered gay guys I know in Seattle that *is* practically monogamous because so many partnerships are WIDE open. In most WIDE open relationships I have seen, one partner is begrudgingly indulging the partner with broader sexual needs to the detriment of their own happiness. I guess any happy non-monagamous couples and threesomes I have seen that are pretty happy are somewhere on the spectrum between monogamous and no-rules/wide-open and not at either extreme. I think when people read the word “non-monogamous” it is associated with the opposite extreme. Honestly Dan, my understanding from reading your column and books, the non-monogamy that you enjoy is also practically monogamous compared to most of the commitment-impaired guys I have dated here. I haven’t been able to enjoy a dating situation where my partner will agree to any boundaries whatsoever, which I think are important in the beginning of the relationship when you are developing trust and the core of the partnership. Anyway, just my early-morning thoughts…
Are you talking strictly about sexual monogamy or just two people committed to each other? I think that some people can’t sexually commit and boy does it cause problems (see Bill Clinton).
I’ve been married 26 years. (Yes, to one person, go figure.) It is a journey, kids, an ebb and a flow. Some of the journey you have no control over – life likes to shake you up that way. Some of it you do (like deciding whether to cheat on your partner). Even though I named Bill Clinton above, he and Hillary are still married. Is it a marriage I would want? Nope. I would have clocked him and walked. But no one really knows what anyone else’s marriage/partnership/relationship is except the two people in it. You don’t even – gasp – really know for sure what has gone on between your parents or grandparents.
Monogamy has many satisfactions. As Dan points out, there can be downsides. Have the relationship(s) that you want but if trust isn’t part of the package, you will never be truly satisfied.
MONAGONAZI – DO DO, DO DO DO
MONAGONAZI – DO DO DO DO
MONAGONAZI – DO D0, DO DO DO, DO DO DO, DO DO DO, DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO
Dan, why are you no longer calling Terry your ‘wife’?
Have you been demoted to bottom?
Excellent! I agree 100%. Dan, you’re a genius. That whole “monogamous people should be able to marry” thing — so clever! I haven’t seen writing like that since the Cooper Point Journal when I was going to Evergreen 20 years ago. I know that kind of smarmy role reversal trick has been totally rhetorically ineffective for over 100 years, but you just keep on belting out those trite literary tropes. With a genius like you behind the keyboard, I’m sure all those idiots who don’t agree with you will come around tout de suite.
What ever happened to each unto their own and mind your own fucking business? That goes for everyone.
Of course people in non-monogamous relationships can trust and depend on their spouses- they can depend on them to cheat.
The notion that one would “love” someone but stray because of sexual boredom is sad. Sex is not that hard and two people who really love each other should have no problem making it work. It speaks poorly of cheaters’ maturity and life skills.
You can’t really comment on something you know nothing about. It’s like asking for rain in the Sahara. Savage really has no knowledge about real stable heterosexual relationships, he only can describe what he knows about and that is open relationships. While at the start sexuality is of great importance in order to get into the evolutionary function of reproduction as time goes by the needs also evolve into a more platonic realm. I’ve witnessed many older couples in monogamous relationships, to the point that it was quite common to see that as soon as one passed away it was only withing a matter of days that the other went to join them also. I guess if society is gullible enough to believe what gay men or any other who have given up on monogamy say (in order to push their own agenda to dismantle marriage) then you could see a decline in monogamous relationships in the future but for many past generations that has not been the case.
Only a fool goes seeking fruit and shade in an uprooted tree.
I appreciate that long-term, committed, non-monogamous relationships are possible and that they exist, but I wonder how many people are able to compartmentalize sex and keep it separate from its various attachments.
I consider my monogamous relationship healthy enough to survive non-monogamy, so that isn’t a problem. But I can’t imagine having satisfying sex without some measure of passion, something that resembles “love.” I could do that a lot when I was much younger, but in middle age such pursuits seem barely differentiated from masturbation, something to satisfy a biological nagging.
The threat non-monogamy presents to committed relationships can be an issue of trust, as in the case of “infidelity,” or stepping outside an agreement without prior permission, or it can be an issue of divided loyalties if seeking sex outside the primary relationship requires a measure of love (or maybe even just passion?) for other partners.
Maybe I’m a lesbian in a gay man’s body. Anonymous hook-ups lost their appeal somewhere in my 20s or 30s. It’s not that I object to non-monogamy, it’s just that it seems like a hassle. It has a certain appeal, but I’m not sure how to make it work without fucking up the thing I want to keep forever.
@20: Dig in your wallet, Loveschild.
Every man you see there had a mistress. A couple of them had children with their mistresses. Lincoln had a male “cohort”.
It isnt that I dont agree with you Dan on almost everything you have ever said, and I respect you not only as a writer but as a good person. And I understand there are plenty of people out there who will fight for the cause of monogamy and its good to have the alternate opinion heard as well. I just feel like there are monogamous couples out there who make it work wonderfully and there isnt anything wrong with wanting to look up to them, and hope to achieve that kind of relationship, even if you are still realistic about the possibilities that things may change down the road and concessions may have to be made. And I hope that those thoughts don’t make me a backwards thinker or not open minded.
This is assuming that everybody maintains their status as a “sexual being”. As people get older they may not be interested in sex and move on to other outlets such as volunteering at church, driving the kids to soccer, wearing those stretchy tight fitting mom-pants over their growing midframe, watching soaps on Tivo, etc.
I do not want to even think about people over a certain age having sex. Old sex is far more icky than gay sex. Obvious some still have a sex drive after 40 but please keep it in the closet.
Is wearing clothes “natural”?
Is writing “natural”?
Is indoor plumbing “natural”?
Democratic government?
Space travel?
Poetry?
We are different from animals because we can rise above (or descend beneath) our animal instincts.
We are capable of reasoning and can make choices.
We may give in to base desires, and in so doing limit our pleasures and achievements to the level of animals.
But to the extent we exercise self-control and discipline we can experience a higher level of achievement and joy.
The comparison to playing the violin or ice-skating is apt- anyone could learn to do those things on some level, and by practice and discipline become good at them, but if one gave in to natural desires not to practice and sacrifice and relied on innate instinct their level of success would be small.
People who follow ‘natural law’ in their personal relationships will endure minimum success, by any definition of success, to the extent that we discipline our behavior and tame the animal we will know more successful and joyous relationships.
It applies to all relationships- not just marriage.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never had any difficulty being monogamous, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my life, it’s that we’re not all wired the same.
To call monogamy an unnatural human trait sounds a bit like a scapegoat. There are countless “unnatural” trends that humans are famous for – working in tiny cubes, limiting our intake of food, working 40 hours a week, paying taxes, caring for our ailing parents, staying home on weekend nights to raise our children – trends that fuel a majority of human lifestyles that require a bit of additional motivation to accomplish. Many human choices are not “natural” and quite often are decisions we would not make without cultural and social pressure.
It is interesting that the article peers so closely at this particular trend and deems it unnatural while ignoring the multitude of other unnatural decisions that humans make on a daily basis. The word unnatural has a negative connotation and that’s my beef. It’s just one way of doing things, and yes, it requires a bit of motivation and focus, and if it’s against the grain of human psychology, fine. But get off your high horse and recognize the countless other restrictive habits and hard decisions that you make on a daily basis and then explain why this habit is excusable.
Dan, for straight couples, deceptive non-monogamy is the natural order of things.
Heterosexuals are indeed meant to sleep around, but we’re also meant to hide that fact from our spouses. The only problem with the Sanford marriage is that Sanford failed to effectively deceive his wife.
Honest non-monogamous straight couples certain do exist, and god bless them all, but they are the exception, not the rule.
We only have so much “special” to spread around in life.
If we share most or all of our “special” with a lifelong partner then that relationship will be very rewarding, rich and Special. (duh)
If we hand out bits and pieces of our “special” willy nilly it will lose a lot of it’s punch and we will soon find not much in our lives is very special at all…
David Barash is a UW professor who, just a few years back, wound up on some conservative scare-list of “America’s most dangerous educators.” Or some such shit. Nice to see that he’s still being consulted and published by credible news sources who actually find merit in his very good research.
@21: Who said anything about anonymous hookups?
Non-monogamy does not necessarily mean rampant promiscuity or anonymous hookups. Anyone who reads “Savage Love” knows that I typically don’t smile on those sorts of assignations.
LC: You said: “You can’t really comment on something you know nothing about.”
And I laughed so hard I snorted my coffee up my nose! Too funny!!!!!!
STFU already, Dan. Your projection of your own lifestyle onto everyone else gets fucking tiresome. It’s almost as if you’re trying to prove something to yourself with all your polyamorous preaching.
@26
You said it best. We’re all different. Simple as that. And I’m not about to try and convince you, Fifty-Two-Eighty, that you must secretly be lying to yourself because you’re comfortably monogamous. Dan might though.
Isn’t it a little bigoted to claim that monogamy is unnatural? You’re free to think that if you really want, but that doesn’t make it true.
First you say “I don’t believe that couples who make the choice to be monogamous should be discriminated against in any way”
and then you have “But the monogamous have to find a way to discuss their unnatural lifestyle choices that doesn’t amount to an attack on those who made a more natural choice.”
Calling our lifestyle choices unnatural DOES seem a little discriminatory.
You can take all the evolutionary biology you want to back it up, and claim we’re ‘supposed’ to have multiple partners but evolution is all about change, just because we may have evolved as non-monogamist, doesn’t mean we’re supposed to be that way forever.
Furthermore, doesn’t the argument of “it’s unnatural” stand up against a lot of things you practice? What happened to your open-mindedness for people to do what they enjoy without being put-down because of it? I am so surprised this post came from you. =
I’m sorry for the monogamous people who attack non-monogamy, I really am. I wish non-monogamous lifestyles were more accepted and embraced in our culture. But calling our lifestyle unnatural and touting yours as superior is an attack, plain and simple. You can fight fire with fire, but if you do, you’ll have to accept you’ve become just the same as the people who try to discredit your lifestyle.
@31, I’m not disparaging non-monogamy or anonymous hook-ups. I’m just struggling to understand how people have made extramarital arrangements work. I know that they have, but I haven’t personally experienced a workable arrangement. I don’t know what it looks like.
@33: So you accuse Dan of projecting, but you turn around and do exactly that.
I love this blog so much.
“Monogamy Isn’t Realistic”
Is maintaining a healthy weight “Realistic”?
More people fail at that than at making monogamy work for them.
Do we throw up our hands and say:
“Go ahead!
“Eat like a Pig.
“Sit on your Ass all day.
“Weighing 400 pounds is a more realistic expectation than eating a healthy diet and getting a little exercise…”
This screed sounds like a case of one of these:
Nice person being nice: You’re looking great today!
Bitchy person being bitchy: Oh, so I looked bad yesterday?
Kaslow’s comments about people feeling safer, more trusting and feeling “like they can depend on their partner” does not need to be interpreted as a slight on the non-monogamous. In fact, it doesn’t need to be interpreted at all. It’s a factual claim that can be either demonstrated or refuted by evidence.
A good followup question for Kaslow would be: what is the basis for these claims? Are there studies that show that people in monogamous relationships report these feelings?
Notice also that she didn’t claim that they actually were safer, that more trust was justified, or that monogamous partners can always be trusted, so Dan’s examples of failures in monogamy are not relevant.
An issue like this, without scientific evidence to back one’s claims, immediately devolves into everyone projecting their own feelings onto others, and to what end? If you are the type of person who remains committed to your significant other, at least until the two of you break up (serial monogamy), then that’s the type of person you are, and you should probably try to find a mate who is the same. If you are ‘polyamorous’ then you better find someone(s) else who is/are too. Why the need for sweeping statements about what is “natural” and what is “realistic”?
Dan will gladly dispense advice about being accepting of all manner of freaky kinks, but when it comes to expecting exclusivity from your main squeeze, that’s not realistic? C’mon Dan… don’t piss in my face and tell me it’s a shower.
P.S. Why should I support gay marriage rights (marriage being the state’s recognition of a committed, monogamous relationship) if you’re going to declare to the world that you and your husband (in Canadian terms) openly flout the assumptions and expectations of marriage? Don’t worry- I do support gay marriage rights, and I wouldn’t stop because of one prominent anti-monogamy gay couple, but you might want to hold back your rhetoric a little until *after* Ref 71 passes.
This screed sounds like a case of one of these:
Nice person being nice: You’re looking great today!
Bitchy person being bitchy: Oh, so I looked bad yesterday?
Kaslow’s comments about people feeling safer, more trusting and feeling “like they can depend on their partner” does not need to be interpreted as a slight on the non-monogamous. In fact, it doesn’t need to be interpreted at all. It’s a factual claim that can be either demonstrated or refuted by evidence.
A good followup question for Kaslow would be: what is the basis for these claims? Are there studies that show that people in monogamous relationships report these feelings?
Notice also that she didn’t claim that they actually were safer, that more trust was justified, or that monogamous partners can always be trusted, so Dan’s examples of failures in monogamy are not relevant.
An issue like this, without scientific evidence to back one’s claims, immediately devolves into everyone projecting their own feelings onto others, and to what end? If you are the type of person who remains committed to your significant other, at least until the two of you break up (serial monogamy), then that’s the type of person you are, and you should probably try to find a mate who is the same. If you are ‘polyamorous’ then you better find someone(s) else who is/are too. Why the need for sweeping statements about what is “natural” and what is “realistic”?
Dan will gladly dispense advice about being accepting of all manner of freaky kinks, but when it comes to expecting exclusivity from your main squeeze, that’s not realistic? C’mon Dan… don’t piss in my face and tell me it’s a shower.
P.S. Why should I support gay marriage rights (marriage being the state’s recognition of a committed, monogamous relationship) if you’re going to declare to the world that you and your husband (in Canadian terms) openly flout the assumptions and expectations of marriage? Don’t worry- I do support gay marriage rights, and I wouldn’t stop because of one prominent anti-monogamy gay couple, but you might want to hold back your rhetoric a little until *after* Ref 71 passes.
(sorry for the multiple posts… got a database error, and didn’t know it had actually gone through)
Dan, the only person I see “tearing down” any lifestyle is you, at the end of the post. I support both the article, and your comments, right up until the end. The professor who said that most people prefer a monogamous relationship, for the reasons they listed, was merely reporting findings.
Would you argue that it is untrue, that the majority of people seem to prefer monogamy? And that those are their reasons, even if you think those reasons are false? It sounds like you’re just angry that the article reported something you didn’t want to hear. Normally you make a point about how journalists never cover both sides of the story, but in this case, you’re just pissy that they did just that.
Admitting that the other side of an argument exists doesn’t amount to an attack on non-monogamy, or poor journalism.
I agree with #11… monogamy may not be for everyone but it IS a healthy type of relationship for a rather large chunk of the population. That having been said, what children need growing up is stability. That stability can come in many forms and it is wrong for society to insist that the only stable relationship form be strictly monogamy and nothing else.
@36
Yup, I’m projecting my own personal view that everyone’s different. How closeminded, narrow and opinionated of me. I’m just doing it so that I can convince myself, naturally. …Er, wait, no, that’s what Dan does.
meh, to each their own. I would say that monogamy is more of the cultural norm, as it is practiced more around the world.
People keep on pointing out that men traditionally have fucked around on thier partners throughout history; true, but I think that has more to do with gender inequality and misogyny than any thing else.
Vegetarian diets are not part of our human evolutionary history, but I am a vegetarian because of the negative impacts to our environment from meat-raising. Monogamy may not have been part of our human evolutionary history, but I am monogamous because I love my husband and the family we have created. Sex is a VERY important part of MALE human evolutionary history, not so important a part of FEMALE human evolutionary history, but both genders enjoy it.
Many species of birds are monogamous.
Dan, I personally want to thank you for harping on monogamy so much lately. I’m enjoying reading everyone’s reactions to it, and it’s helping me sort out my own feelings about it. I’ve never believed in monogamy (and spent a long time miserably trying to practice it and always failing), and I’m realizing now it’s because it doesn’t work for me. Because it feels unnatural to me I figured that means it’s just unnatural period. But now I’m coming around (thanks to all the people speaking up to defend it) to the idea that monogamy really does work for some people. I wouldn’t have had my mind opened up if it weren’t for you starting all these discussions about it.
David Barash and Judith Eve Lipton are awesome. I hope my partner and I end up half as cool as them at their age. Barash if a prof at UW–if you’re a student there, you should definitely find a way to take one of this classes.
Speaking of commitment Amazon has 45 used copies of Dan’s book “The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family (Hardcover)” starting at 61¢.
“Skipping Towards Gomorrah” will set you back 33¢…
@48/49
Ouch.
Jesus Christ, you’re such an oversensitive prat. Pointing out that most people prefer monogamy doesn’t equal tearing down open relationships, except in your anorexia addled brain.
And open relationships aren’t any easier than monogamy. It’s difficult enough to consider the needs and desires of just one person.