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.
Having experienced both types of relationships, I much prefer a monogamous one. I find the trust, respect and love created in a monogamous relationship is much more satisfying than any “natural” desire I might have to fool around. The best part is, contrary to what you might expect, is that it gets easier as time goes by. Eventually, I am sure, Dan will grow tired of the energy it takes to stay in the chase and will come to realize that, in this case, there is no strength in numbers. I look forward to reading his column when he comes to that conclusion.
@20: You say “You can’t really comment on something you know nothing about.”
And yet you are here, every single day, spouting off nonsense about gay men, gay relationships, gay this and gay that.
Is there something you’d like to tell us, dear?
@51
He’s attacking because he’s trying to convince himself that his way is better. It’s childish and sad, but whateva. His issue & he seems pretty insecure about it. Tune the guy out when he turns irrational, tune him in when he becomes rational again. Most of the time, he’s damn good at helping others navigate their relationships… so long as their issues don’t coincide with his own.
Stop imposing your gay anti-monogamy values on the rest of us.
We’re perfectly happy with serial monogamy.
Just do what you want.
I mean… goddamn.
You can have the best of both worlds, though. Humans naturally long-term pair bond, but sexual exclusivity isn’t historically part of that bargain and it doesn’t have to be part of it now. You don’t have to decide between exclusive marriage or a wild, swinging poly tribe or perpetual singledom. You can have a committed relationship that admits some outside contact. That’s possible, I swear.
False dichotomies make me tired. All of you stop your stupid fucking black-or-white quibbling or I’m going to need to get some more coffee. Yes. That means you, Loveschild.
I was just swimming in my tank, minding my own business, and then this guy just goes soaring over my head on a motorcycle.
Was that Dan Savage? What the fuck was HE trying to accomplish?
@45
yes, most birds are SOCIALLY monogamous, but they are NOT genetically monogamous (check out Tim Birkhead’s work from 20 years ago). Male and females sexual strategies are often in conflict with one another.
Most mammals are polygynous. Monogamy occurs in only 6% of Mammalian genera (Devra Kleimann’s work). It primarily occurs within some groups: rodents, primates, and carnivores.
@56 — Yeah, I know it’s possible, and I’ve heard or read about or read testimony from polyamorists or committed non-monogamists who claim it can work. I believe that. But I still don’t have any idea *how* it works because I’ve never personally seen it work. And I’m interested to know how it works and what it looks like.
I know what “cheating” looks like, and it’s ugly. I know about mismatched libidos, where the frustrated partner seeks extramarital sex with or without the other partner’s permission. That’s usually satisfying for one out of two people in the committed relationship, which often suffers or ends as a consequence. I know about partners who have a steady side interest with someone else, but remain committed to a primary partner who may or may not have any knowledge of the side interest. In the one case I know about, it “worked” okay only because the partners were willing to practice avoidance, both of the affair itself as well as the other partner’s seething resentment. I know about “open” relationships where both partners are free to have sex outside the primary relationship, but I’ve never personally known about one where either partner’s definition of “long-term” matches mine.
In short, I have a lot of personal knowledge about non-monogamous relationships that range from the merely disrespectful to the outright disastrous. And I’ve read about or heard about happy arrangements. I’m curious to know more about the happy arrangements. Something more substantial than “they exist.” I’m sure they do.
Monogamy ISN’T natural. @58..Is that the study where birds that are supposed to Pair-Bond for life are observed “cheating”…BC there is a study somewhere that goes into this.
I have ALWAYS been in monogamous relationships, until recently. My recent SLUTTING OUT with a FWB may be helping my marriage. I am nicer to my hubby after a tryst with fwb…relaxed, satisfied and, etc.
Monogamy is unnatural. People have a hard time separating Love and Sex, but once you do…it’s a lotta fun
58
Incest is a natural mammal behavior.
Rape.
Eating your own young.
Eating your own poop.
Is it “Realistic” to expect humans to avoid these Natural lifestyle choices?
@10
Won’t someone think of the children! Did you even think that the parents of young children might consider which adults they bring into their children’s lives regardless of their relationship style? Being non-monogamous doesn’t mean you bring everyone home. Just like a divorced parent won’t introduce their child to every boy/girlfriend a non-monogamous parent has no incentive to introduce new partners to the kid. “Infidelity” isn’t the right metaphor, done right non-monogamy is quit fidelous, it just might also be polyphonic. If one has long-term secondary partners it may make sense to introduce them to the kid carefully and appropriately. All the while stressing the familial support for the little one.
@59
Getting over jealousy is hard work, especially if you’ve had bad experiences with it in the past, but… well, frankly, open non-monogamy frequently works just like cheating except that no one is being lied to and you can have a productive discussion about whether you’re both getting what you need.
You read Dan’s column or listen to the podcast? I’m surprised you don’t have a pretty good picture of how at least some not-strictly-monogamous relationships function.
I guess the key as far as I understand it is a certain minimum amount of self-knowledge. You have to be realistic about what you want, need, and are okay with, and you have to know it well enough to talk to your partner about it… and, inevitably, you need the right partner, too. You can’t have a functional open pair relationship unless both of you want it. Trying to create one with a partner who just isn’t into it – not ready, not inclined, whatever – is like trying to hammer in screws just because you happen to have a hammer. You need to get a screwdriver or you’re just going to make a mess and smash your thumb.
Brilliant.
As I’ve said multiple times lately, I think monogamy and polyamory are both kinda awful, for different reasons. I have trouble seeing a middle ground that respects the type of connections that I care about. I agree with @56 about the black-and-white thing, but I’m pretty confused by the shades of gray.
Still. . . great post.
@63 >> “You can’t have a functional open pair relationship unless both of you want it.”
That’s probably the ingredient I’m missing. I haven’t known of any open relationships where both partners were equally accepting of the terms. One always wants it more than the other, and that seems to be as natural an arrangement as any I’ve seen.
@61
Your point is taken; there is such a thing as the “naturalistic” fallacy, a variant of the “is/ought,” and it is, in fact, wrong to suggest that something is right or acceptable based solely on the fact that it occurs in some form in nature.
We have collectively, consciously decided to eliminate the behaviors you mention from our societies. It is that very consideration, that deliberation, which makes us human. It would therefore be a betrayal of our highest principles, of the things which make us potentially more than the sum of our evolutionary parts, to lump together the harmful and the harmless, the destructive and the victimless, the obsolete and the potentially positive, with no further consideration than that some things are “bad.”
We have contraception. We have stable societies. We have genetic testing. Strict monogamy is no longer justifiable even to ensure paternity (whether it ever was so justifiable is a different question), and so it behooves us to ask whether it is necessary for any reason at all. Many of us who ask this find that we can only answer “No.”
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.
I forgot to add:
OH SNAP.
My wife and I were monogamous for 14 wonderful years. Then we decided to stop being monogamous. It has been another 1.5 wonderful years since then! We have done it both ways, and I can say that both can really work. But of the two, the non-monogamy way is more fun. I went 14 years without so much as kissing another woman, but frankly, I’m not sure I could have made it another 50. This way, I have my cake (a lovely, loving wife) and get to eat it too, all in the context of a loving, trusting relationship with my wife, and with total honesty.
@68 >> “…with total honesty.”
I’m curious, ohthetrees, if you’ve ever developed affections for extramarital sexual partners, and if that topic is open for total honesty between the two of you. Like, do you develop a regular routine with one or two extramarital sex partners, or are the extramarital partners always short term only? Are there rules that you and your wife have agreed to?
If the question was put to you: “so, do you love her?” And if the answer was, “yes,” would that be a totally honest conversation you could have with your wife?
Also, do both of you seek/find extramarital pleasures with about the same frequency of occurrence as the other? Do you talk about these encounters with each other?
68
that is such a lovely story.
(she started stepping out on you, eh?)
Of course I’ve developed affections for partners. I only sleep with people I like and think are attractive, so it is only natural. I wouldn’t want to sleep with someone I wouldn’t/couldn’t feel affection for.
My wife and I usually have sexual encounters with other people together, as threesomes or foursomes. However, I do very occasionally see a woman on my own. My wife hasn’t exercised the option to see someone independent of me, but she can if she wants to.
The above paragraph makes it sound like we are sleeping with a million people, but what it boils down to is together we see 3-4 couples regularly, and I see one or two women on top of that. Over time, we have become very good friends with several of them, and see them more often for friendship and activities than for sex.
I haven’t “fallen in love” with anyone else yet, but if it happened, I would have no problem telling my wife, and I think she would be fine with it. The reverse would be more difficult for me (if she fell in love with someone) but I would do my best to embrace it if it happened. I think it is easier to avoid falling “in love” with someone if you allow yourself to feel lust and affection for someone, but don’t mistake that for love. Love is a big jump beyond affection, and so far, I’ve only experienced it with my wife.
Frequency of extra-marital encounters is about 2X/month (well it was before my wife got preggers anyway). Honestly I’d probably do it more often than we do right now, but I want to make sure that the focus stays on our relationship, and that my wife doesn’t feel like this new lifestyle is taking over our lives.
@69..In my marriage, we are able to have sex with others, but because jealousy is a natural human emotion, we try not to “throw it in each others faces”.
He is fine with me sleeping with other men in theory, but knowing details would make him jealous/angry….I tell him some things, but not details out of respect for him.If he asks, I’ll tell.
The emotional part is tough…sure you get “attached” to a regular sex partner, but not in the same way you do with your spouse.
Not saying it would work for everyone, but it works for us.
@Meat Weapon,
Some people try to set rules on open relationships about no attachment or no falling in love, that kind of thing, but it’s really pretty damned artificial and as far as I’ve ever seen it doesn’t work and it takes the fun out of things.
Chances are, you’re going to get infatuated with someone if you want to have sex with them or if you do, in fact, have sex with them. Once you have experienced that a time or two, though, either your own crushes or your partner’s, you start to figure out that a crush and a partnership – love, if you will – are different things entirely. A little crush never did hurt nobody, you know? Unless you freak out about it. Then, it hurts everybody.
@70
You’re a snarky shit, and you’re wrong in detail, probably, but you might have more of a point than you even realize.
Some open relationships do start that way, generally when one partner doesn’t even realize an open relationship is something they can ask for. It’s tragic and stupid and pointless that this usually results in the detonation and failure of the relationship just because no one knew other, better options were available.
But yeah, some people don’t even start thinking about non-monogamy until an incident of cheating makes them realize that love is not going to end forever, society isn’t going to cast them out, and the universe is not going to implode if their partner has sex with someone else.
@72
I’ve found that throwing a few threesomes or foursomes into the mix helps a lot with that lingering jealousy. Plus, they’re really, really fun.
I guess that’s less optimal if your husband is totally straight, though. Man, inflexible heterosexuality is so boring.
I read an article a while ago about a species of vole that actually is monogamous.
The first time they mate, certain chemicals in their brains form an incredibly strong memory and they never mate with anyone else until they die.
That doesn’t happen with people, obviously, but I thought it was interesting.
Thanks, guys. I think I have a clearer picture now.
So are open relationships automatically defined as unnatural and unrealistic because they have an even worse track record of success than monogamy?
@74..I’d LOVE it if my hubby had bi-tendancies…I could even deal if he was a closet-gay (That would be kind of awesome)but he’s not. Threesomes, I could get into w/ FWB, but not hubby.
71
so whose kid is your wife carrying?
I’d point out that non-monogamous people are not necessarily honest with each other either. That should be obvious, but a lot of poly people talk about it as though no lying ever occurs. It’s still possible to cheat, by breaking whatever rules you’ve laid out for your relationship. The poly relationships I’ve been witness to (quite a few, including several of my own) haven’t been any more honest than the non-poly ones, on balance.
I think monogamy is ridiculous, I really do. But being non-monogamous doesn’t solve that many problems, and for every problem that it solves, it creates a new one. Just sayin’.
@65
That has been true in most of the poly relationships I’ve known as well. One person is really into it, one person is being dragged along for the ride. Lying to themselves and each other about it. Ugh.
Thanks for speaking to this Dan! If people could get away from the tradition and customize their marriage, monogamy would certainly have a better chance. Check this out: http://www.marriageprepadventure.com
@80
I think I may be the only person who is indifferent to monogamy/non-monogamy. Ok, to be fair, I’d have a slight preference to non-monogamy, but I don’t see myself as either the sort of person whose really into it or the person being dragged along for the ride.
I am so tickled because both my husband and I are violinists, so yes, we both *can* play the Beethoven violin concerto. Though I wouldn’t do it in concert.
We feel no pressing need to be monogamous, however. We’re newly married and only sleeping with each other right now, but I don’t feel fear and trepidation at the thought that, in the future, we’ll want to have sex with other people.
Great concerto, by the way.
I disagree that one lifestyle choice is more “natural” than the other. Clearly, one feels more natural to you, Dan.
I’ve had an open relationship, earlier in my life, and I’ve been in a monogamous marriage for 20 years.
My experience has been that both have varying “track records”. A bunch of open relationships implode disastrously, as do monogamous ones. I don’t think the track record is as much about what type of relationship you have, as it is the quality of that relationship and the nature of the people in the relationship. Why does it need to be set up as either/or, anyway?
You seem to be setting up the very dynamic that you claim to hate (one group judging the other). I suppose that’s your point. Feels like there’s a more evolved way to make it.
@80 good point, but it does mitigate a major category of dishonesty that commonly crops up in monogamous relationships.
Dan, I don’t agree with your point of view on monogamy at all. What is the point of dating or falling in love with another person if you can’t end up someday with them in a loving/long term relationship? Here is a quote for you to ponder.
“Life is simple if you keep it simple, it’s not overwhelming. I think that life is about finding one good friend, and if possible, finding one good friend who’s also your lover and your partner for life.”
“Marriage is a young man’s disaster and an old man’s comfort.” – “Marriage is a psychological condition, not a civil contract and a license. Once a marriage is dead, it is dead, and it begins to stink even faster than a dead fish.” – Robert Heinlein from Starship Troopers and To Sail Beyond The Sunset
@86, I really don’t think you understand the discussion here.
Monogamy and long-term, loving, stable, etc. partnerships aren’t the same thing. In fact, it’s kind of pointless to talk about non-monogamous relationships if you’re going to consider that an oxymoron, isn’t it? The point is that a degree of sexual openness in those relationships is not only practical, but can in fact help improve and preserve them.
“lurk moar,” as the kids say.
There’s a big difference between open relationships, swinging, illicit affairs and serial monogamy.
The Great Divide is really between couples that tie up economically and emotionally, and grow into old age together with shared assets (regardless of the exclusivity of their sexual relationship) and people that never “settle down” with anyone.
The problem for those in the latter category is that it is very expensive – and difficult – to buy a house, raise a family, survive unemployment and sickness etc, by yourself. A temporary partner is only a partial, limited fix. Anyone who has had parents or grandparents married for several happy decades knows that monogamy is not some kind of unnatural prison.
Yes – with exclusive relationships where partners can’t handle affairs there may be some sacrifice of sexual adventure, but presumably the benefits make it worthwhile for those couples.
When you divorce, you halve your wealth. If the two of you had a shared mortgage that you could just about reasonably afford together, there’s no way you’re going to split up and get a house each. You’ll get a flat, or a tiny house in a cheaper area. People need to realise the economic and practical realities of single life. It’s not to say that people should stay in unhappy relationships for the sake of money, but it needs to be recognised that a permanent relationship (marriage or co-habiting) isn’t just some archaic, unnatural, undesirable state. It’s usually hugely advantageous and desirable to the people involved.
89
Statistically staying married is the greatest factor in determining if someone will stay out of poverty.
It correlates more than even educational attainment.
Infidelity is a (if not the) chief contributing factor to divorce.
Monogamy often confers a huge financial advantage.
@raindrop; Kids adapt much better than you think. It’s the parents who freak out. And the teenagers, but they freak out all the time anyway. Lies are a terrible poison. Of course, that doesn’t mean you bring your kid along on dates all the time or whatever, just that they can easily deal with their parents having an understanding non-monogamous relationship. They’ll have a much harder time with their parents having big weird secrets.
@48/49: Dumbest troll ever. You do realize that you can get most mass-market books for similar prices because the dealers make all their money on shipping? Dan’s books cost the same as Ann Coulter’s or Shakespeare’s or the Bible.
@89, @90, I guess those of us who don’t pair off are screwed then. That would be me. I never paired off w/anyone. Now, there are some things I don’t like about relationships, namely having to answer to someone all the time. In that sense, being in a relationship was like moving back in with your parents. I do miss the sex, but I’ve learned to live without it. In a relationship, in my experience you stop having sex after about a year anyway. So I live w/o sex, a house, a car, health insurance. Nor am I living a “wild” single life, I haven’t dated for about a decade. I just gave up. And I sure didn’t see my parents or grandparents married “for several happy decades.” My mother’s parents were dead before she graduated from high school. My father’s father was one miserable person and I assure you his marriage w/my father’s mother was indeed a prison for her. My own parents marriage didn’t last. Without a partner, I do wonder if, when I’m old and infirm, I might end up taking my own life, esp if the option is a nursing home. But of course, one could be in a relationship and face that same decision, couldn’t they?
@90
Please see my comment @88. Your troll has been preempted. Sorry. Try again.
Doesn’t the concept of an open relationship/open marriage/polyamory open one up to an increased risk on contracting an STD? I understand the importance of safe sex, but condoms DO sometimes break……
In my experience, people seem to be geared one way or the other, and fighting what feels right for YOU, causes problems. I’ve yet to meet a couple in an open or poly relationship that didn’t have all the same issues as a monogamous one. The fact is, relationships are work, you have to put in time and effort, and it is always difficult to meet the needs of all.
I’m geared to monogamy, having sex with someone other than my partner or with more than one person would just be stressful and not fun, it is completely unappealing. Thankfully I have a partner who feels the same, and we make sure that our sex life is fun, exciting and fulfilling. It has only gotten better over time, I would never feel comfortable doing the things I do with my husband with another person. Our committed monogamous relationship allowed that to be.
I also have friends who are constantly bemoaning not having a relationship but whenever they are in one, cheat on the person. I say just be honest with yourself, you are not geared for monogamy, and that’s okay. Now stop lying to all the people you sleep with and stop pretending you want a committed relationship when you don’t!
Those of us who ARE in monogamous marriages don’t assume monogamy will be easy, or that it will always be fun. But we do think it’s realistic. Hell, celibacy is realistic, in that it can realistically be achieved, but not that’s it’s easy or fun. Now, some people may not think that happy monogamy is realistic, or satisfying monogamy. But monogamy without the adjectives is very realistic, for people willing to try. It’s the difference between avoiding and resisting temptation, and just saying “What the Hell, I’m part of a horny species.” After all, pacifism requires self-control too. And healthy eating, and exercise, and charity. The difference is that it’s okay to mock the gluttonous and overweight, or the lazy, or the selfish. But somehow the non-monogamous are just evolved enough to know their own limitations while the monogamous are just sheeple following an outdated code. WHat happened to “to each their own”? You can have an open a relationship as you want; I don’t care. But don’t say that mine isn’t realistic. Easy, no. realistic, yes.
Nature rewards monogamy with health.
Postpone sexual activity until you pair with a lifelong partner (who shares and practices the same values) and remain monogamous and you get a free pass from STDs.
Practice non-monagamy (and/or pair with a partner who is nonmonogamous) and expect STDs.
In fact, expect a direct correlation-
the more promiscuous you and/or your partner are the greater the chance and more virulent the exposure to STDs.
Perhaps Nature is not as clever about what is “Realistic” as Dan but it is sending an unmistakable loud clear message…
Me? I don’t care what other pople do with their private bits. Just keep them away from me unless they are invited over to play.
I do notice an amusing dodge at work in this debate, though. A desire or need to sleep with others besides a primary partner, in the pro-poly world is taken to be a hard-wired thing, it seems. But when they address guilt or shame people feel at cheating or otherwise engaging in a lifestyle viewed by others as unhealthy, erroneous, etc, well, that seems to be just cultural oppression by the narrow-minded, etc.
Sooo…the sex drive is wired. But feeling lousy about your sexual behavior is not wired? Thus, in their worldview, with just a little more openness and open-mindedness, and then no more lousy feelings, but still plenty of sex.
Maybe that shame is wired in too? Is our sex drive counterbalanced by that? Just a thought.
Snowguy, I think that shame and guilt are hardwired emotions; however, I don’t necessarily think that guilt about something can be called hardwiring. Everyone (who is stable) experiences guilt; not everyone experiences guilt about open relationships.
Cheating? Of course, in most cases, that will make a person feel guilty if he or she cares about the person they’re cheating on. But that’s only because they’re risking hurting their partners. Cheating and non-monogamy are two different things. It’s the risk of the hurt that causes the guilt.
Society teaches/brain washes us on which sexual behaviors are good and which are bad. That’s not hardwiring, but rather socialization.
But caring, compassion, guilt, love? Those are all emotions that are probably hardwired in humans, and even many other animals.
I think you only need to look at history and divorce statistics to realize that monogamy isn’t actually ‘natural’ for most people. The sad thing is that they feel that it IS, so they end up in a position where they’re forced to lie and cheat to get something that they want, and they end up hurting a lot of people in the process. A married man that cheats on his wife hurts his wife, any children, and feels an enormous amount of guilt. Great. It’s possible that his ‘mistress’ feels bad to be treated like a second-class relationship, so now you’ve got at least 3 people that feel bad about this whole thing. AWESOME.
I’ve been partnered for 13.5 years, more than half of them non-monogamous. We’re on the same page and agree that this is what we want; neither one of us spent any time having to convince the other. If I find a girl that I like, I get ENCOURAGEMENT from my partner. Instead of 3 people being hurt, we have three people that are HAPPY. If it goes bad — because any relationship can go bad — it’s no worse than the monogamous setup, but the potential for it to work out is 100% better.
Some people can do monogamy, and that’s impressive. Like the article said, it’s like being accomplished at any other difficult thing. So here’s what to take away:
1) Monogamy is HARD, and nobody ever said it wouldn’t be.
2) Not everyone has to do the hard thing.
Dan,
You misunderstood the quote, “People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner…” The key word is “feel.”
Is jealousy a bigger problem in polyamorous relation than in monogamous relation? Thinking it’s not is just ignorant… or arrogant.
The claim that monogamy is not natural is also absurdly unfounded. People are hardwired for jealousy just as much as they are hardwired to be turned on by strange.
I am all for poly for people who can truly pull it off, but I also think there are about 5X as many people who mistakenly think they can than those who actually can.
You have to ask yourself why you feel such a strong need to fuck more than 1 person in spite of the relational and physical risks. “Because it is fun” is not a legitimate answer. Why is it fun? The answer usually has a lot to do with a combination of low self-esteem and self-centeredness.