In the last post I laid out a case for why monogamy exists. It provoked some sturdy objections in the comments, and some good discussion as to whether the arguments were flawed.
This week the goal is to give the counter case – why monogamy is so difficult for most people to maintain, and what negative effects it has for individuals and society.
As a quick recap, the pro case is that monogamy is romantically appealing (especially in the early stages of love), psychologically comforting, evolutionarily useful, and helps stabilise societies that institutionalise it.
The short version of the counterargument is that erotic and bonding drives have different neurochemical origins, that opportunistic sex outside of a pair-bond is a powerful bonus for evolutionary success, and that humans are highly diverse in their individual proclivities and so societies that enforce one model inevitably harm heterodox individuals.
As before, I will do my best to avoid moralising or snark.
1. Our romantic drives are loosely coupled networks
Probably the biggest factor in why it is hard to remain monogamous is that there are several drives built into us that contribute to reproduction, but they do not work in unison.
First up is simple lust. From a behavioural perspective, lust is the direct trigger for copulation – an impulsive, urgent desire for sexual release. There are multiple layers to this impulse, but the most direct and rudimentary is where a sexually charged stimulus provokes a reflex response.
Biologically, the lust reflex is linked to sensory cues – a flash of cleavage, the scent of body odour, an erotic caress. In the brain, nitric oxide signalling increases sexual appetite, and the same signal also increases blood flow to the genitals (true for both men and women, although the results are perhaps more prominent for men).
Supplementing lust is libido. That can be seen as the baseline level of lustiness, and the ease with which erotic desire can be stirred. Libido is largely under hormonal control, with testosterone being the most obvious factor. In the brain, serotonin also seems to contribute to libido in some complex manner – based on the evidence that SSRI antidepressants commonly decrease libido.
In contrast, the romantic drive to pair bond is more long-term and more subtle than lust. Certainly, in the early stages, romance is coupled to erotic desire, but emotional consummation and attachment are the primary rewards. The neuroscience of romantic desire is linked into arousal, reward seeking, and bonding, with oxytocin and vasopressin hormones getting in on the party. For limerents, these are the processes that make us addicted to an LO.
Most people can experience sexual arousal independently of the desire for romantic bonding. Lifetime sexual monogamy is exceedingly rare. Many more people can erotically excite us than romantically appeal to us.
Libido and love are not separate, but they are only loosely coupled from a neuroscience perspective.
2. Sometimes these drives conflict
To make things more complicated, sometimes these drives can work against each other. Long-term pair bonding takes on aspects of companionship and familiarity that can act like a cold shower for the libido.
This contrary effect also makes sense, from a biological perspective. There are forms of love that run counter to eroticism – understandably, parental instincts inhibit the erotic drive. If you come to see your partner as a dependent to be cared for, then it is very easy to fall into the trap of the sexless marriage.
Even worse, this transition from lover to carer can be the consequence of the psychological security that monogamy offers – when we feel totally safe with a partner, we are able to share our most vulnerable thoughts and fears, and seek comfort. Although this is powerful for bonding, it can also run counter to eroticism if the drive to nurture and protect goes too far.
This reality is a compelling argument against monogamy. Can one person ever meet all of our emotional and physical needs, if they are sometimes independent and contradictory urges? Social monogamy cannot indefinitely satisfy erotic impulses without significant, deliberate effort by both partners to keep an unstable balancing act going. That is especially true for people who find that novelty is a big part of their eroticism.
So, why are we built with drives that sometimes work together but sometimes work at cross purposes? Does nature just have a sick sense of humour?
3. There is no perfect evolutionary strategy
Genes play the odds. A mating strategy that increases the chance of reproduction will give any genes that promote that behaviour a competitive advantage. Evolution is an arms race, and there is no one best, definitive strategy. It’s a competition, and there are multiple possible solutions to any problem – which means that bet hedging is often the best approach.
From an evolutionary perspective, the best outcome for selfish genes propagating through males is to form a stable pair bond, but with seized opportunistic mating outside of that connection. The pair bond maximises the chance that a man’s children will survive, but any chance to spread genes outside of that partnership is a lucky bonus.
For genes propagating down maternal lines, the best option is for a woman to only be sexually receptive to the most fit males, but to not limit herself to a single partner.
A number of children from different fathers increases genetic diversity in a woman’s offspring (playing the odds), but because the physical cost of child rearing is much higher for a woman, it would be even more useful to be covert about paternity, if possible, to benefit from the stability of the pair bond while also seeking other mates.
So, there is a good case to be made that social monogamy plus covert, opportunistic sex is a good, general behavioural model for maximising reproductive success. For men and women.
4. Evolution doesn’t explain everything
It’s easy to build a compelling case that it was to our evolutionary benefit for sex and bonding to have separate mechanisms to allow for this dual behaviour of bonding and straying. But a problem with the reproduction-focused approach is that it misses insights from non-reproductive couplings.
I have heard from several asexual limerents – people who have a powerful romantic impulse that leads to utter infatuation, but for whom the sexual impulse is minimal. Lesbian and gay limerents have both drives, but they are focused on same-sex partners who have no reproductive value from the perspective of evolution.
These cases help illustrate the same truth: that these drives are built in to trigger certain behaviours not certain outcomes. From a genetic perspective the only thing that matters is that the behaviours statistically result in an increased likelihood of the “desired” outcome. But once those drives are let loose in a human, all kinds of crazy, wonderful things can happen.
Any personal choice, and any system of civil society, has to accept the reality of the fact that we are built in a way that sexual and romantic behaviours are driven by systems that are overlapping but independent.
5. Social conventions can be inhumane
The tyranny of the majority can be awful. It can be even worse when it’s the tyranny of a hypocritical majority.
In the recent past of Western cultures, heterosexual monogamy was institutionalised through both legal means (polygamous marriage is illegal) and social pressure (stigmatising cheaters, shaming promiscuity).
For people who wanted to live outside these strictures, life was hard, and love was furtive. It took social revolutions in the twentieth century to liberate homosexuals and bisexuals to love openly, and it wasn’t until the twenty-first century that gay marriage was legalised in the UK and US. Infidelity remains technically illegal in many US states, even if the laws are never enforced (and so remain mainly as a kind of moral artefact that no politician is motivated to repeal).
Not for the first time, laws seem to run against human nature… but that is kind of the point of laws. To agree on permitted limits on behaviour. To prohibit actions that might be gratifying for the individual, but which trample on the rights of others and/or are destructive to wider society. The art of law is in finding a fair balance.
I can’t pretend to be well read in anthropology, but you don’t have to read much to realise that almost every type of social model for sexual conduct has been tried somewhere at sometime. Patriarchal structures, matriarchal structures, polygyny, polyandry, overt or covert infidelity, permissive or intolerant attitudes to kinkiness. The diversity of cultural norms is broad, and all models have their champions. Just like biological evolution, cultural evolution does not yield a single, perfect solution.
In all cases, there would be people whose desires and needs fell outside of the mainstream. Even when hunter gatherers had fluid tribal systems of open inter-mating, there would have been rituals and conventions used to coerce those who yearned for exclusivity to fall in line.
No matter what model is adopted, the heterodox suffer. For the orthodox, alignment of their sexual preferences with the socially sanctioned model makes life easy. It’s the outliers that try to derange their true nature to fit a social ideal, who have to cope with the psychological distress it causes.
And that brings us to another natural break. This is the ultimate point of contention for most people when it comes to monogamy as a cultural norm: how do we balance the conflict of the individual and the mass? What moral framework can best balance personal freedom against social responsibility?
Let’s run headlong into that wall next week.
“No matter what model is adopted, the heterodox suffer.”
So don’t have a standard model. Be allow couples to have their own model. Adaptability as a key hallmark of resilience, . It is entirely unnecessary in a modern, gender equal, organised and relatively law abiding world. In the same way religion is now unnecessary to keep the peace.
The anthropological research I have read found that in cultures where couples long term pair-bond plus accept open polyamory, the majority of couples choose to have sexual relationships outside of the pair bond. Only a minority chose monogamy – around 20% if I recall correctly. So I would argue that without the embedded cultural scripts, our current monogamous model naturally aligns with the heterodox.
“So, why are we built with drives that sometimes work together but sometimes work at cross purposes?”
Because we evolved to be polyamorous not monogamous.
(sorry… am gonna keep on banging the same old drum 😊)
This is a common assertion, Allie, but is there evidence to support it? Are social constraints on behaviour “entirely unnecessary” because we are more enlightened than the generations of people that came before us and built those conventions up through bitter experience? Do we have a responsibility to our community to constrain our desires, or should society butt out of our private lives?
These are genuine questions. I do not think the answers are obvious.
“Are social constraints on behaviour entirely unnecessary”
No of course not, but they should not be governed by outdated ideologies. I must add that I was referring specifically to monogamy, and non-harming sexual behaviours in general, not all behaviour.
Instead of focusing on consensual sexual behaviour, we should have social pressures / constraints around more important things such as excessive greed, wastefulness, tyranny, poor emotional management, refusal to compromise/perspective take. These represent perfectly acceptable ways to behave in western society but are far more detrimental to us all than Jane Smith having two lovers.
Maybe unrealistic in the short term, but I we can start by sowing the right seeds now.
Just adding my two cents to a very interesting thread:
“A tiny fraction of men attract a majority of women – and not because the women need economic rescue or protection.”
The idea of the super-attractive male spreading his genes far and wide, if nature is left to run its course, is a fascinating line of inquiry.
Don’t an astonishing number of modern men in Asia have the same Y chromosome as Genghis Khan, or something? Meaning they can trace their ancestry back to him and his, cough, cough, sizeable harem? I don’t know if old Genghis was much of a looker, but he certainly had power…
It sounds to me like institutionalised monogamy has some drawbacks, for sure, but it’s still the fairest system human beings have managed to come up with so far. It’s a lot fairer overall than any of the alternatives.
Ethical non-monogamy or polyamory might be a good contender in the “fairness stakes”. But it’s a relatively recent social phenomenon that primarily interests the middle classes, and is connected to the fact that women probably do have a lot more say these days in intimate relationships. I think women have more say now because female education and female workplace participation have never been higher.
If a woman is making a strong contribution to the finances of a couple, I guess she’s more likely to voice her discontent if the relationship isn’t emotionally fulfilling to her? Perhaps the traditional relationship of my parents’ generation is dying, simply because both sexes are in the workforce now?
A lot of couples do revert to more traditional behaviour, however, when kids come along. Because it works. Because at least one person has to be there for the kids 24/7. Because one is too exhausted to fight anymore.
“I’d say sexual jealousy is the primary motivator for men wanting monogamy in women (not wealth protection).”
Public intellectual Jordan Peterson says that sexual jealousy is the main cause of domestic violence. I find sexual jealousy a really fascinating topic, because I believe it’s at least partly genetic/biological.
I.e. plenty of males never show any violent impulses toward females. But the males who do are probably partly driven by genes. (A hardwired desire to control a mate?) This means that education alone won’t eliminate domestic violence. Violence is tragically part of human DNA. I’m not trying to excuse or justify violence – merely to explain why it happens at all.
I guess, what I’m trying to say is, some problems between men and women have deep, deep roots in ancient human biology. (A man’s genetic desire to have total possession of his female mate and curtail her sexual choices and keep other rival males away). Society doesn’t create these emotions in the male brain – these emotions exist from birth in the brains of some males.
I think institutionalised monogamy can hopefully reduce domestic violence in society, by reducing the overall levels of sexual jealousy in society. However, an insecure man is still an insecure man. And his abusive behaviour toward his mate can’t be solved or eliminated altogether by strategies such as institutionalised monogamy.
As with all human behaviour, there’s this fascinating area where biology and culture overlap I think institutionalised monogamy is a very good attempt to solve, or reduce, the problem of human inequality. But yes, women might still be called upon to make more sacrifices than males – especially once children enter the picture.
But women also benefit from institutionalised monogamy – in theory, women get protection from dangerous, predatory, psychopathic males.
Still, for the system to work, all parties involved, have to “play nice”.
Sammy,
“A tiny fraction of men attract a majority of women – and not because the women need economic rescue or protection.”
I think this is true. Guy who are either very good looking but even more so considered high -status: very successful, wealthy or famous. And for some women, they’re ok with sharing those high-status men because they accept that he will have a lot of options, i.e. a rock star and professional athlete, etc.
Yeah, and this holds up statistically. Apparently we have around twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Seems counterintuitive, but actually inevitable if some men are able to have children with more than one woman (by attraction or coercion – evolution is heartless).
Sammy,
I agree with a lot of what you said about DV but as a small child who witnessed DV growing up, your discussion is one sided. It was my mother who should have been taken away in handcuffs and locked up. Revised DV statistics show the rate of DV committed by women is likely over 40%.
My father was a WII vet. It wasn’t that he couldn’t have killed my mother when she went at him, it was a tribute to his integrity and restraint that he didn’t.
My father was a traveling salesman and gone a lot. It provided both of them the opportunity to mess around. I never heard a single rumor of my father’s infidelity but the rumors of my mother’s indiscretions rose to the level of my paternity. Ancestry.com pretty much put an end to that question. Unless one of my cousins shows up as a half-sibling, my mother gets off on that one.
I don’t know if sexual jealousy played a role in my mother’s behavior. What I do know is she said he was never around when she needed him. She appeared to deal with that in alcohol and other men. And, she could be a volatile and violent drunk.
Has anybody looked up how the DV rate among polygamous groups compares with monogamous groups?
@Sammy
There is a lot of gender stereotyping to unpick in your post but I must resist the urge to do that as I don’t want to hijack this thread any more than I already have.
Instead I will reference a great book “The Gendered Brain”. One of the few on this topic that is based on solid modern research & evidence rather than authors opinions and a re-hash of outdated male-biased science.
Please don’t see this a criticism – we are all institutionalised from infancy into our gender stereotypes so most people truly believe them.
I must add though that beyond the first six months of a newborn’s life, men are perfectly capable of rearing children and running a household. My brother is a stay at home father, his wife the main earner. Neuro-plasticity is an amazing thing – how you use your mind shapes what it can do.
Allie 1,
“I must add though that beyond the first six months of a newborn’s life, men are perfectly capable of rearing children and running a household.”
It doesn’t take 6 months. If you have to, you can do it from almost day one. It’s not ideal but it can be done.
“Ethical non-monogamy or polyamory might be a good contender in the “fairness stakes”. But it’s a relatively recent social phenomenon”
The opposite is true. Monogamy is the more recent social phenomenon. Evolutionary biology indicates that H. Sapiens evolved to be polyamorous and were mostly that for the first 190k years of their existence as a species.
[Evidence needed]
Could become my own drum beat 😉
For starters:
Ancient Society by Lewis Morgan
The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels
Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá
Obviously I am not going to quote entire swathes of research conclusion from several books.
But I can’t resist giving a teensy evidence taster purely for my own entertainment… it relates to the impact of sperm competition on human sexual anatomy 🙂
– The anatomy of a the human penis forms a plunger. During sex, it creates a vacuum that sucks out the preceding man’s sperm from the vagina;
– The final part of seminal fluid, that follows the sperm, is spermicidal. To kill the next man’s sperm within the vagina.
This would be necessary of woman were by and large monogamous, and not getting it an awful lot from elsewhere.
There is a WHOLE lot more evidence than this – within the fields of anthropology, primatology and evolutionary biology.
But I find this particular clue funny for some reason!
That’s certainly good evidence that men compete ruthlessly for paternity, and that opportunistic sex is a common feature of our evolutionary history. But, I kind of assumed you were arguing for a harmonious state of polyamory in our evolutionary past – where mutual sex in a tribe or community was the norm (and contributed to social stability).
The sperm competition evidence could instead be used as an argument that humans “evolved” for male rape, backed up with a good dose of violent enforcement of fidelity…
This would NOT be necessary of woman were by and large monogamous, and not getting it an awful lot from elsewhere.
Oh and I almost forgot… human women naturally make a fair amount of noise during sex. There is evidence around this relating to primate sexual behaviour. The conclusion is that this is the human mating call, to attract another man in the future.
Love this.. intend to scream so much louder next time 😊 😊
Allie,
“…human women naturally make a fair amount of noise during sex. There is evidence around this relating to primate sexual behaviour. The conclusion is that this is the human mating call, to attract another man in the future.”
Nah. It’s for the benefit of their current male partner. Makes him think he’s doing a good job. It’s the legacy of porn. 🙂
“That’s certainly good evidence that men compete ruthlessly for paternity, and that opportunistic sex is a common feature of our evolutionary history.”
No it does not show that. You are adding your own personal narrative here. It ONLY evidences that humans evolved with women having multiple sexual partners. The book I have referenced at your request contains a complete set of well researched and very convincing evidence that the early H. Sapiens evolved to be highly egalitarian and polyamorous.
“humans “evolved” for male rape, backed up with a good dose of violent enforcement of fidelity”
Is this what you believe DrL? I have certainly never read anything solid that supports your theory. The opposite in fact. I believe the key strength that distinguished early humans from apes was our compassion and mutual support for each other. We could rely on others to keep us alive in times of need – people give to others in need, even when they get nothing in return (Book ref: How Compassion Made Us Human: The Evolutionary Origins of Tenderness, Trust and Morality)
So why did social monogamy appear? If – as I would guess you would answer – powerful men imposed it to control female reproduction, why would those powerful men willingly give up their previous sweet, polygamous life of running a harem? Polyamory suits powerful men.
“So why did social monogamy appear?”
Am simplifying a LOT here:
1) The invention of heavy agriculture in the west ultimately resulted in the removal of women from the workforce into a life of domestication and effective male ownership with little money or power of their own.
2) Increased private ownership of property and accumulation of wealth by men who, to ensure it was inherited their own progeny, forced their women (but not themselves) to be monogamous.
3) The above eventually led to the formation of harems of women by wealthy powerful men, a shortage of women and a rise in crime amongst single low value men.
4) To solve the above problem, mutual monogamy was enshrined in law – I believe by the Greeks and Romans.
The real problem was gender inequality which monogamy did not resolve. If you remove the gender inequality, you remove the need for monogamy.
It is interesting to note that, from what I have read, more modern ethical polyamorous relationships (a.k.a. “many loves” NOT “many sexual partners”) come about at the insistence of women rather than men. Not that the male participants are complaining!
This triggered a couple of interesting thoughts for me.
1) I’d say sexual jealousy is the primary motivator for men wanting monogamy in women (not wealth protection). Sure, most men would not want to spend resources on raising another man’s child, but the insane, violent rage of sexual jealousy is a much more primal force.
2) It seems to be another of those discriminators between the political left and right as to which is seen as more damaging to social harmony: wealth inequality or reproductive inequality. Being a centrist, I’d argue that both have civilization-destroying potential 😉
“which is seen as more damaging to social harmony: wealth inequality or reproductive inequality”
Where is the reproductive inequality in a gender equal society where you can choose polyamory or monogamy? You would not get widespread polygyny emerging if men and women had equal power and wealth.
People are not equally attractive. I think the data from online dating apps is showing us that, in fact, you do get de facto polygyny where there are no social constraints on coupling. A tiny fraction of men attract a majority of women – and not because the women need economic rescue or protection. Those unusually attractive men end up with high numbers of sexual partners (which I would argue is not good for them, but that’s a side issue). Such men are not motivated to commit to a pair bond.
So, instead of economic inequality leading to polygyny, attractiveness inequality leads to it.
To be clear: I don’t see this as a moral melodrama. I don’t think anyone is being coerced or selfish or irrational. I just think inequality is a very difficult problem to solve.
Polygyny would not predominate in a gender equal society. Gender equality renders monogamy as unnecessary.
Are you sure? It surely depends on your definition of “necessary”. How confident are you that the problems of reproductive inequality (social disharmony, increased violence, sexual jealousy) will evaporate if both men and women are free to marry as many other people as they please? Or if marriage was abolished altogether? Or if marriage went back to a mostly legal contract with the assumption that extramarital sex was fine?
Can you not foresee any unintended outcomes?
Polyamory /= polygamy
ethical polyamory /= extramarital affairs either
People can choose serial monogamy, lifelong monogamy or ethical polyamory now and I don’t see it causing widespread violence. What problems do you see happening that I am not aware of?
I actually agree this is a pretty stable state, and I’m glad to live in such a society. But, I suspect that stability does depend on social monogamy being the cultural norm, and ethical polyamory being an exception to the norm.
I’m writing a whole post on this, so won’t rehash it here, but culturally supported monogamy and culturally tolerated polyamory seems the best utilitarian compromise.
I suspect (and admit it is speculation) that a shift to social polyamory as the cultural norm would lead to increased competition, inequality, sexual violence and social disharmony.
To be honest, I’m a bit lost in the comments thread…so I’ll just respond here and hope it kinda fits.
1) As someone who has experienced DV, I don’t believe that it is rooted in sexual jealousy. This person, who I’ve encountered, was someone who was extremely unstable and used control and violence to regulate themselves and to give them a sense of stafety and power that was entirely independent from sexuality or jealousy. Voilence is a power move that is not exclusive to romantic relationships either. There are people who are abusive towards their children, employees, class mates, parents etc. You can’t explain that with sexual jealousy. Abusive people will be abusive no matter the scenario…it’s entirely about their internal state at that moment. It’s not about what you do or don’t do or how society is built or how you have defined your relationship. Romantic partners (and children for that matter) are more available and dependent that’s why it’s easier to abuse them but it’s always the same mechanism. Blaming it on sexual jealousy doesn’t sit well with me. I’m sorry, if I’m a bit intense here but this is personal to me and I’m not ok with simplifying DV like that.
2) When I read the above dicussion about monogamy vs polyamory etc. the thought that popped up was that we are still far away from tolerance regarding that topic. Sure, monogamy is the social norm and that creates pressure and stigmatizes people who deviate from it. But at the same time people who do have different lifestyles are condescending towards monogamy and feel they are superior and more evolved. Intolerance really is no one way street here. I mean what’s the point in arguing what’s “best” and more “fitting” to human nature? Is there really a one size fit all solution to this?
@BLE.
You make some great points. Thank you for your input. Maybe some discussion on monogamy here has become too abstract?
To be honest, I don’t know what causes DV. It must be an incredibly complex issue, as well as an extremely sensitive issue. I think there’s a conservative line, which Jordan Peterson seems to endorse, that it’s linked to sexual jealousy. But maybe that’s too sensationalistic? Maybe it’s too easy to blame people’s relationship problems on jealousy alone? Maybe that’s a huge cop-out?
Maybe some commentators on DV (not on this site, but in the world at large) try to tie certain sensitive issues to either a conservative ideology or a progressive ideology, and the given ideology doesn’t really fit the facts… Just as ideologies often reduce men and women to absurd caricatures. I.e. men are always like this and women are always like that. If only men were men and women were women, the world would be perfect, operate smoothly, etc.
I guess it’s wrong to take people’s very complex lives or personal tragedies, and use the same to prop up some favoured ideological position. That’s definitely one of the dangers of philosophy, and I suppose intellectuals make this mistake all the time. I.e. trying too hard to make evidence support particular pet theories/views of the world. I guess we’re all guilty of a little utopian thinking at times. (E.g. I could design a perfect world. But would anyone other than me want to live in the world I create? Probably not. Haha!)
Just in the part of the world I live, which is working-class mostly, I think monogamy is the norm for straight couples, and serial monogamy is the norm when relationships break down. I think most people, especially parents, are just trying to do the best they can. I think people do crave the security of a committed long-term relationship, but it doesn’t always work out. I think people are more worried about financial survival than sexual fulfilment.
I actually think limerence as a social/emotional experience belongs in a class all of its own. Limerence isn’t really about monogamy or polyamory, and which is better. Although maybe social norms such as a prior marriage to someone else can be perceived by the limerent/s, rightly or wrongly, as the main barrier to consummation.
The barrier to consummation in my own experiences of limerence has always the personality of the LO himself!! I don’t blame monogamy. I blame LO’s mercurial disposition! Haha! 😛
BLE wrote, “But at the same time people who do have different lifestyles are condescending towards monogamy and feel they are superior and more evolved.”
Yes, they are and particularly on this site. It’s off-putting, to put it mildly.
Hi Lee. I seem to be the main proponent for polyamory in this series of blogs… are you referring to me in your comment?
Just to be clear, I am pro-choice and anti-judgement, not anti-monogamy – something which I myself practice.
“There is no perfect evolutionary strategy”
One aspect of sex and relationship models that has been left out of these blogs is the fact that sex in humans is not only for reproduction. If it were, we would only mate during a woman’s fertile period, like many animals. Humans have sex throughout a women’s menstrual cycle implying it provides another evolutionary advantage. From what I have read, the primatological and anthropological evidence suggests that sex between non-pair bonded humans in polyamorous cultures (from which we all evolved) helped bond individuals together and create shared good will both within and between tribes. It can be argued that this sense of good will and compassion differentiates humanity from our primate ancestors, and is the secret of our success as a species. I have read much about modern ethical polyamory and the same happens there – it creates a network of people that have a vested interest in the wider community’s well-being. i.e. people, once they learn how to manage jealousy productively, often grow to care about their metamors. I think the argument that monogamy is best for society is very weak.
It is too easy to be blinded by cultural view that hugely overcomplicate sex. Hundreds of years ago, it was just a natural normal way to connect and experience pleasure. Similar to sharing a good meal.
Thanks for this topic DrL… it is one that fascinates me!
Me too 🙂
There was only one brief period in my life when I was sleeping with two women at the same time. It was I was seeing someone after LO #2 and I broke up the first time and LO #2 came back making noises about getting back together.
I’d spend one night at one woman’s place, one night at the other, I’d go back to my place to check the mail, and the cycle repeated.
It lasted about a month, 6 weeks max. I couldn’t handle it. I didn’t feel like I was being disingenuous with either of them, I just needed to pick one and focus my attention there.
Song of the Blog: “Did You Ever Have to Make up Your Mind?” – The Lovin’ Spoonful (1965)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txTEhgReZUA
What made you pick one woman over the other? And did they know about each other or were both casual so … no need to divulge what anybody was doing when not together? Like a don’t ask, don’t tell, which I personally prefer if things are casual.
I went back to LO #2.
We had a past but even more compelling, I thought we had a future.
I handled things really poorly and caused the other woman a lot of needless pain. She stood in my living room with tears streaming down her cheeks and said, “She’s using you!”
I told her was a chance I had to take. She proved to be correct but I could never look her in the face again.
I don’t regret the decision to go back to LO #2 but if I could have one “do over” in life, it would be to spare that woman the pain I caused her.
And, no, they didn’t know I was sleeping with the both at the same time. The other woman knew I’d broken up with LO #2 via her BIL, a coworker, but I didn’t tell her LO #2 had re-entered the picture and I didn’t tell LO #2 that I was seeing someone else.
I don’t like to triangulate relationships. So, I picked one. Then, I told the other woman.
Right after I rolled off her. It was probably the worst thing I’ve ever done to someone.
I don’t know how long you were seeing this other woman, but if it was only four to 6 weeks, why give her all the gory details of some other woman you have more feelings for? Why not just tell her u don’t want to proceed forward with her… don’t see a future, etc.? Keep it generic and move on.
Maybe because I was on unfamiliar turf and I was an idiot.
There’s the flip side of that: Trying to be too nice. With my one LO who became a boyfriend, he wanted to get married, and once the limerence wore off, I knew I didn’t want a serious relationship, let alone marriage. But I kept saying things like, “I’m not ready for a relationship,” without saying what I really meant: with you. The way I worded it made it sound like I might be ready at some time in the future and I should have been more direct with him. Not cruel, but more direct.
LO #2 and I got back together. The following few months were like we had guns pointed at each other. I knew what I had to do. I’d ask her to marry me. I knew she wasn’t the woman I wanted to come home to at night, wake up next to in the morning, and grow old with but maybe if I gave her a reason, she’d trust me and become that woman. I was really naive.
She could have dropped her gun and we could have worked on things. She could have pulled the trigger and married me. Who knows how that would have turned out? I never thought she’d drop her gun and run. Which is what she did.
I remember when I decided to propose, I wasn’t excited about it. I entered an almost zen-like period of tranquility. I knew what I had to do and was prepared to do it.
I told that story to a psychologist whose job it was to catch spies for a living. He said, “That’s what we see in someone from the time they decide to commit suicide until they carry it out.”
I proposed to LO #2 on Xmas morning 1985. She declined and left town in May. It was the beginning of two of the weirdest and worst years of my life. You’d think I would have pulled the plug immediately but I didn’t. It took until April 1988 to play out to the end.
One takeaway from my experience with the other woman was that I made a promise to myself that I’d never turn over another woman to get back with LO #2. When I met my wife, I held to that.
I’ve made my share of mistakes along the way. Some of which I payed for and some of which I didn’t.
“The tyranny of the majority can be awful. It can be even worse when it’s the tyranny of a hypocritical majority.”
In this case, it was initiated by the tyranny of one gender over the other.
(sorry, I just can’t seem to help myself… drum bang.. drum bang.. drum bang)
I think this is the point where your argument breaks down. Why would men institute monogamy, when polygyny suits them better? Most truly patriarchal societies practiced polygamy, with polygyny being the norm. Plus, of course, it is a tiny fraction of the population that actually enacts laws in all governments except social democracies (and even then, if we’re honest).
The patriarchal oppression hypothesis would seem to lead to polygyny for men and monogamy for women. Social monogamy seems like a device for obstructing philandering men.
I have oversimplified a LOT here as the real answer is quite long and spans 1000s of years.
Are you disagreeing with what I said? That would imply you think that historically, women chose for men to have all the wealth and power?
Fair enough – difficult to summarise this issue in short comments! Hence why I’m taking three posts over it. Do you have a good reference book that goes deeper into the argument you are making? As I say, I need to read more anthropology to properly grasp the ideas.
In terms of disagreeing – no I don’t disagree that (some) men fought for power and horded and abused it. My disagreement is that such a scenario would lead logically to social monogamy. Traditionally the most patriarchal societies practiced legalised polygyny (but certainly not polyandry) – the most unequal scenario for women.
To me, institutionalised monogamy seems like a check on the wanton excesses of powerful men.
“To me, institutionalised monogamy seems like a check on the wanton excesses of powerful men.”
Then we agree. But institutionalised real gender equality is a far far better solution to that problem than monogamy is.
Drum bang.. drum bag.. drum bang 🙂
Is there any human institution that could feasibly achieve this – i.e. functional equality, not just legal equality? How are you going to correct for all the inequalities of life?
Do you believe gender equality is unfeasible then?
What inequalities of life are you referring to?
I have a fairly dismal view on this from one perspective, but more hopeful from another.
I don’t think it is even really possible to define what is meant by inequality. At the simplest, it would mean legal equality and everyone having the same opportunity to take part in society. You could claim we already have that, as long as you are wilfully blind to how inequalities of the past propagate into the present. The other extreme would be enforced equality of outcomes – i.e. distribution of wealth, power, resources, opportunities, etc. (and that etc. covers a lot of dimensions of human life) by some sort of omniscient, just, authority. Societies that have historically attempted to implement that idea have descended into totalitarian nightmares.
I guess I see solving inequality like solving crime – an excellent ideal, but not something that can be achieved without controlling every aspect of human behaviour. Somewhere you have to compromise and accept that it’s a minimisation problem. People are not equally intelligent, attractive, industrious, honest, healthy, conscientious, patient, agreeable, motivated, cooperative, competitive, ambitious or lucky. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages.
That’s the dismal part. The more positive view is that – given the impossibility of correcting all the unfairness of the world – we should focus instead on ensuring our social institutions are as objective and free of bias as we can, and encourage every individual to reach their own full potential. In a free society, people can pursue the purpose they choose for themselves – and they have a lot of choice if they are lucky enough to be born in a stable, prosperous democracy. The super competitive, ambitious, single-minded, determined, driven people will always get ahead, and some of them may have inherited wealth and good genes which is unfair, but we don’t all have to be Elon Musk to have a meaningful, fulfilling life of value and purpose.
OK, I’ve wandered off the point a bit, but that’s mainly because this is really interesting, and I think the problem of inequality is one of the biggest threats to civilisation at the moment. I mean, at least climate change has theoretical fixes 😉
re: DrLimerence
Your last reply is very well said. It reminds me of the philosophical bantering that were often the subject of debates between such individuals as John Rawls and Robert Nozick on these kinds of topics. My philosophy is very simple: Everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but these rights do not include the liberty to deprive others of their liberty, even if such pursuits makes you happy. Of course, those who think that their rights are more important than the rights of others are likely psychopaths and sociopaths. They are the ones who exhaust the energy out of everyone else around them, until everyone else gives up trying to deal with them. This is how they are able to keep rising to higher and higher prominence, unabated.
You seem to have switched to talking about ALL equality ths neatly side-stepping my point and question which was specifically about gender equality. I suspect a deliberate sidestep – maybe a wise approach.
Apart from it being a preventer of widespread polygyny (you have not provided any real arguments regarding this point), gender equality is pretty core to the issue of monogamy given the historic roots of monogamy, that the research suggests that on average marriage benefits men more than women when compared to their single counterparts (https://heragenda.com/this-is-why-men-benefit-from-marriage-more-than-women), and that sexually, women have a greater need for sexual novelty than men and are less satisfied by LTR sex than men (book ref: Mind The Gap).
Just a technical aside, I think the term “institutionalised monogamy” makes a lot more sense to me than “social monogamy”.
I guess “institutionalised monogamy” really is marriage, where the partners are presumably faithful to each other. Except, today, there are a lot of solidly-committed monogamous couples who aren’t legally married, so the term “institutionalised monogamy” might be better to use in research and discussion than “marriage” per se.
It’s interesting – the formal institution of marriage and the social custom of sexually-exclusive commitment have become decoupled somewhat, because of fewer couples tying the knot, but still wishing to live in stable pair bonds.
In a world increasingly populated by cohabiting couples, marriage almost seems like a super-commitment. And yet, only fifty years ago, marriage and commitment would have been synonymous. I think people would have found in general far fewer good reasons not to get married. I.e. if you wanted an exclusive sexual commitment, you got married.
I just discovered that the last comment I made in a previous post is much actually more on-topic over here, so here it is again . . .
Anyone who is now fully familiar with the concept of limerence knows that limerence employs a very powerful cocktail of emotions and has a definite, and powerful, sexual component to it; and sex is necessary for reproduction – just in case you hadn’t made that connection before. The opening paragraph in the Wikipedia article Rare Earth hypothesis is this:
In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.
If your limerence seems to have cosmic significance, it is because it does.
I’ve also discovered a source that explains how the whole phenomenon of romantic interest and subsequent disinterest can be mathematically verified using the example of a swinging pendulum, swinging from flirtation to rejection and back again, until external forces slow the pendulum to zero, to a point of mutual ambivalence. Continuing the pendulum analogy: DISCLOSING to your LO is the same as reaching in and forcibly restraining the pendulum from any further motion, instead of allowing it to go through its natural oscillations and perturbations to settle into a stable state.
In the YouTube video I’ve linked below, check out the section between 20:43 and 22:55, and the closing remarks after 26:28 are good too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_di4Zn4wz4
This post reminded me of Esther Perel’s TED talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_perel_the_secret_to_desire_in_a_long_term_relationship?language=en
I just watched this TED video and . . . wow there is a lot to unpack here! Thank you for the link, everyone should watch this. It will be a while before I’ll be able to completely wrap my head around everything this woman has said in this talk, but there are clearly some epiphanies to found within it.
I like Esther Perel and I think her theories are interesting, but I don’t know how much they apply to the general population. This blog is for limerents, a small subset of the population, so they may apply here. But, as a general rule, I don’t think most people struggle to contain some kind of desire for sexual transgression. Maybe it’s my age, maybe it’s the people I am meeting, but in middle age, I see a lot of people very happy with the routine and the comfort/security she mentions.
If someone likes me, and I mean they like “me”, that is always a turn-on, but it just seems exceedingly rare.
Yes, but turn on and longing for “inappropriate” lustful situations are two different things. I don’t know too many people who are married but flirting with a co-worker and having to actively, willfully contain themselves from grabbing said co-worker and having a tryst in the back seat of a car. They enjoy the filtration for what it is and move on. I’m talking non-limerents, but I don’t think most people are battling those demons.
Hmmm, that is an interesting question – to how many people it applies. But I guess enough that work struck enough of a chord that she became kinda famous? I think her ideas stem from her work as a pscyhotherapist. From what she says, it sounds like this problem is more common than we think, but it is true that I haven’t seen any hard data on this…
T,
Maybe it’s the people I am meeting, but being knee-deep in middle age, I’m usually met with stony silence if I so much as suggest we meet at a different time or go somewhere different with my group of female friends who meet up once a week. What I mean is: They are very regimented. Jumping off the cliff and blowing up their lives to give into some kind of lust scenario isn’t even on their radar screen. It’s an interesting concept to put in a novel about middle-aged angst, sure, but I don’t see it playing out in real life.
Haha, I also don’t know many people like that in my personal life, and I’m not quite at middle age yet. But seeing Esther Perel’s popularity, I think to myself, wow the world is full of all kinds of people I had no idea existed XD
But that being said, the main thing I took away from the TED talk was that people are increasingly start to ask for everything (and sometimes those are conflicting things) from their partner who is only one single person. It’s exemplified by this one quote from the talk:
“So we come to one person, and we basically are asking them to give us what once an entire village used to provide. Give me belonging. Give me identity. Give me continuity, but give me transcendence and mystery and awe all in one. Give me comfort. Give me edge. Give me novelty. Give me familiarity. Give me predictability. Give me surprise. And we think it’s a given and toys and lingerie are going to save us with that.”
(And this ties back with our other discussion about amatonormativity/relationship anarchy – if one single relationship becomes the end-all be-all, people will want every single need under the sun to be met from one source, which is not sustainable. That being said, I do think that is extreme depiction: I mean… married people do have other friends and family…)
T,
“That being said, I do think that is extreme depiction: I mean… married people do have other friends and family…)”
While I think this is true, I don’t have any married friends who ask me for anything. Neither do the single ones. Those roles are reserved for the spouse or other family members. I am someone to do things with, so I don’t know how much friends are contributing to the “village,” at least in my experience.
I also think the person who gives one surprise won’t also be able to provide predictability. One needs two men for that. 🙂
Or is everyone maintaining appearances? Who knows what other people do in private. After all, the definition of a successful affair is no-one else ever knowing about it.
I find that hard to imagine too, but it is an interesting thought 🙂
I think in order to have an affair you have to want something or be longing for something you don’t have. The women I referred to don’t operate in the world that way, don’t process their lives and experiences that way. I don’t know anyone who does, actually, except the peeps on this site. 🙂
Marcia,
“Jumping off the cliff and blowing up their lives to give into some kind of lust scenario isn’t even on their radar screen. It’s an interesting concept to put in a novel about middle-aged angst, sure, but I don’t see it playing out in real life.”
You need to watch more sitcoms.
Clip of the Day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOWAggYhgHQ – “Friends” – S3E5, “The One With Frank, Jr.”
One of the truly great “Friends” episodes.
http://www.friends-tv.org/zz305.html
When Catherine Zeta-Jones was shilling for T-Mobile, I told my wife that if CZJ ever rang the door bell and asked me to run away with her, we’d have a new cell provider and I was gone.
My wife said if that ever happened, she’d help me pack.
Marcia,
I was talking about people who were really struggling, who were having to, for example, leave jobs and get away from someone who was really tempting them. Not a sitcom scenario.
@Marcia.
Just a side comment on the whole village/family/getting needs met idea. It DOES seem to be that a lot of people’s lives revolve around family.
For example, in Australia, if you have a big wedding, who do you invite? Pretty much ALL the guests are family. Hardly any friends.
My dad doesn’t understand American movies where obnoxious young men gate-crash weddings in the hope of “picking up chicks”, because, at Australian weddings, all the chicks present are related to the men in some way. Nobody is going to weddings in order to get lucky, in other words. 😛
I think people tend to rely exclusively on spouses and family for favours/support because they’ve tried approaching friends at some point in the past, and gotten knocked back/betrayed/had a bad experience. Friends seem so much less reliable than family… Blood is thicker than water, for most people.
Having said that, I think many people fantasise about having a village, or a great group of friends, they can rely on. Hence, the wild success of sitcoms such as “Friends”. (Totally unrealistic. But people still watch it. Why? Because it’s wish fulfilment).
Any thoughts?
“If someone likes me, and I mean they like “me”, that is always a turn-on, but it just seems exceedingly rare.”
@James.
But I assume the person who “likes” you still needs to be female (i.e. a person of your preferred sex) and meet some minimal level of intelligence and character and physical attractiveness?
Or do looks, etc, not matter if you feel a strong emotional connection?
Sorry if I’m being nosy. I’m just curious about how other people determine what is or isn’t a suitable prospective partner?
I think I have, for example, an endless criteria in my head for a “suitable prospective partner”, that no human could ever hope to fill. And that might be the real reason I’m eternally single… 🙂
Yes Sammy, to qualify as a potential LO, yes to all. However, I am always delighted when someone wants to interact with me, no matter who they are.
Sammy,
“Friends seem so much less reliable than family… ”
But what if your family is an unreliable as the friends? You can’t assume that family will be reliable or that they will be people you actually like and want to spend time with. I don’t know. The older I get, I just don’t see the point of friendship. I have now what I would call a handful of friendly acquittances. They kind of circle in for a bit, then circle out. Months will go by and I we won’t communicate. I would never call them if I needed anything. They would never call me. The relationships don’t feel like anything, and, really they’re not.
For years, I held friends in higher regard than family. Neither side of my family was very close. If we weren’t related by blood, we wouldn’t have anything to do with each other. For example, my maternal uncle called one day and said he thought he should tell me my aunt died. I asked him when it happened. He said, “About 6 months ago.” My mother’s sister died a few years ago and I hadn’t talked to her in 50 years. Of my 13 cousins, I’m in casual contact with 4 of them. Facebook put me in contact with two extended family neither of whom I remember ever actually meeting.
As an only child, as an adult, until I got married, I only had my friends to rely on if I needed help.
But, I was trained to be self-reliant. In her great confession, LO #2 said, “You don’t need me. You were only with me because you wanted to be.”
LO #2, a nurse never really did anything that made me want to set up shop with her. Once, when I came down with the flu, she came over, took care of me, cooked, cleaned the house, and did the laundry while I was sick. I asked her why she was being so nice to me. She said,
“It’s the firs time since I’ve known you that you needed someone.”
Oddly, I was never 100% sure LO #2 had my back. I had other friends I had no doubt had my back. LO #4 once told me that it felt good to know that I had her back. I liked that.
Before I got married, my idea of disposing of my estate if I died would be to pile all the stuff and things like insurance policies, bank books, personal possessions in the middle of a football field. Friends would line up on the goal line, family would get a 5 yard head start. My attorney would blow the whistle and anything someone could carry to the sidelines was theirs.
After I got married, my wife and I didn’t get wills until we had our first child. It wasn’t because we didn’t want to leave the stuff to each other, it was because we couldn’t agree on what would happen to the estate if we died simultaneously.
Since I was an only child, she assumed everything would go to her family. Because my father had died, I brought a decent estate into the marriage and I objected to all of it going to her family. So, I refused to get a will until she agreed I could leave something to my family. That way, if we died together, my family would get a cut. Having a kid, took that problem away and we set up wills to take care of one, later two kids.
Families are families. When my daughter got her first real job, she asked if she should get life insurance. We told her, yes, and we were the beneficiaries. She got indignant. We told her we had co-signed her student loans and if she died, we shouldn’t be on the hook for them. We told her that once her loans were paid off, she could name anyone she wanted as beneficiary.
LE,
“Friends would line up on the goal line, family would get a 5 yard head start. My attorney would blow the whistle and anything someone could carry to the sidelines was theirs.”
I would never leave anything to family and friends. They aren’t in my life enough to warrant that. And I don’t really want my family arranging any kind of service. It would be like the priest who shows up to do the service after you pass and has never met you.
I got a lot Esther Perel’s Ted video, but perhaps the idea that jumped out at me the most was individuality. We are more desirable when we are independent from our partners, and vice versa. That would seem to contradict limerence don’t you think? The idea that you don’t even need a partner that you have everything to sustain you within you that is an argument for both monogamy and polygamy.
Has anyone else noticed that as we (humans) get “smarter” and come up with semi-scientific terms and refer to data while we pontificate assertions of our individual perceptions and experiences as being worth disclosing here, polite society, as we know it, is eroding at exponential speeds? What is right and wrong has been distorted by the most brilliant among us to be a maliable set of flawed, unproven guidelines. The decay of society so closely timed with the brilliant new way we dissect what is going on inside our bodies when are acting selfishly or deviating from what is “right” has become an excuse for such behaviors. Why is there a dearth of morality in all this enlightened blather? Maybe because we seek justification for undisciplined, unscrupulous behavior to shed guilt? I don’t think I need to link to a peer reviewed study. I think we (humans) know when we are doing right or doing wrong and that it has nothing to do with the rules we were handed. Cheating: wrong. It’s dishonest. It’s selfish. How do you know? Because you wouldn’t want it done to you. I also don’t need millions in funding to prove that people that sacrifice to do what is right end up happier, more fulfilled, better humans. Prove otherwise.
The enlighteled class has declared a war on Good in many ways. This is just one so I’ll stick to this topic and shut up after this…
You’ll be 90 one day (hopefully), and I’d bet my bottom dollar you won’t be too proud of the times you got your rocks off instead of being a better human.