Social acceptance of non-monogamy: The ever-changing definition of monogamy

[Billygoat 405]

I have always had an interest in the human definition, just who are we? What drives us? Who actually defines us? I know I was never asked....or given the questionnaire.

 

As always it is those not living how others are or maintain power or try to be that desperately try to define all of us into a box.

 

I’ve always been curious, always asking why because the bottles, jars and boxes we all get shoved into never hold true.

 

My take away? Humans are:

 

Curious

Adventurous

Emotional

Highly social

Desire acceptance

Absolute need for contact, touch

Emotional connection, attachment

Happiness....

 

....collectively we want to be happy. We want at the end of our efforts, happiness.

 

So with that in mind why the imposed monogamy question? Maybe a better question is why the varying definitions to adapt to the wide variety of cultures, beliefs countries when in fact we were not made to be mono anything since the beginning of time without being taught, threatened and social outcasts for not taking part in the norm.

 

Mate sharing, spouse sharing and combined expanded family arrangements have been around since before history. The last 2,000 years monogamy, authority of the one, singular, grew but always had the old ways nipping at its heals.

 

In my readings I recently came across an interesting article, below:

 

Why Monogamy Isn't

The death of compulsory monogamy and viewing monogamy as only a social good

 

Elisabeth A. Sheff Ph.D., CASA, CSE

The Polyamorists Next Door

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201508/why-monogamy-isnt

 

As most everyone in this group lives or wants to live a less than monogamous lifestyle you might find it an interesting read.

[PeterJ 826]

Thanks for this reference Billy G. I did find this article from 2015 quite interesting. It’s a good brief definition of terms and a quick overview of the writer’s perspective on where society is today.

 

For those here on the board who have never read any of Helen Fisher‘s work I recommend her book “Why We Love“. It’s a look at why from our days as hunter/gathers, men & women tend to bond with one another and then with the passage of a few years sexual interest wanes, creating an incentive for both parties to develop other romantic and sexual interests. (And while Fischer doesn’t address the generation of attraction and its subsequent diminution between same-sex couples, I suspect that evolution has given the same mechanisms to gay people as to straights.)

 

In summary, Fischer theorizes that reproductive interests and the selfish gene worked to program individuals selection of appropriate partners. And further that after the passage of the approximate time it takes a child to require only one parent‘s supervision, that same evolutionary heritage caused the eyes of both parents to begin to wander.

 

Fisher partially addresses the implications of our genetically-influenced behavioral predispositions for people in today’s very different cultural environment and the inevitably that conflicts will arise. But she is coy about suggesting solutions. If I may paraphrase she says “It’s a tough deal dear reader and you’ll just have to figure it out for yourself.“

 

My theory is that in the case of many couples involved in the lifestyle — whether the reasons are available to their awareness or not — swinging is an adaptive way of reconciling those unavoidable conflicts between other-directed sexual desire and the social, emotional and economic benefits that accrue to couples with long enduring relationships. I see a good deal of evidence of this right here on the swingers board. It’s so frequent to read comments about how swinging refreshes a couple’s relationship sexually and brings them closer together emotionally.

 

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805069135/geneexpressio-20/102-3024772-7446528?%5Fencoding=UTF8&camp=2025&link%5Fcode=xm2

[GoldCoCouple 4,014]

Monogamy in its most basic form with everything else stripped away is (IMHO) to provide a stable environment to raise children (and is the same reason for marriage).

 

It assures that there would be someone whose primary duties are to raise the child and someone whose primary duties is to help provide food and shelter. Everything else put aside, this is it. If either the man and/or the woman is sleeping around with, well, anyone and everyone, then they won't feel as attached or responsible to any children that result. These days, with the aid of modern medicine and contriception, children can be more of a choice than a surprise (please leave your personal beliefs at the forum door, I'm just trying to post facts and not personal preferences). Take children out of the equation and other than personal insecurities, what is the purpose of marriage or monogamy (as long as your partner knows that this is the case)?

 

Even in the Old Testament, having multiple wives was perfectly accepted. Even the New Testament doesn't condemn polygamy (or homosexuality either, but most people don't want you to figure that out). It wasn't until Romans developed larger cities that monogamy became the accepted norm (see Monogamy isn't biblical, its Roman) even though the Romans were celebrated for their bath houses and brothels.

 

Now that the world is becoming 'more tolerant' of every type of sexual identity, it is only a matter of time before people begin to question the concept of monogamy. I believe that in the next 10-20 years it will become more accepted into society as these questions arise. The main thing holding it back is the amount of honesty and trust that a couple must have to consider taking that step into polygamy. As that trust and communication a couple has increases, it will not only open the door to polygamy, it will (once again, IMHO) improve and strengthen the total relationship regardless to how many are involved.

[adamgunn 1,456]

Gold, I would respectfully disagree with you about the Romans, at least of the early Empire. At the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus, young male slaves were kept as playtoys for both the women and men in the house. Julius himself was known as the 'Queen of Bythnia' because he had a relationship with the King of Bythnia and it was rumored that Julius was a bottom.

[padoc 1,696]

Great Ceasars ghost!! I didn't know that!! Perhaps that's why there was a hole-ly Roman Empire later on! Precedent.

[Fundamental Law 2,817]

...

 

My theory is that in the case of many couples involved in the lifestyle — whether the reasons are available to their awareness or not — swinging is an adaptive way of reconciling those unavoidable conflicts between other-directed sexual desire and the social, emotional and economic benefits that accrue to couples with long enduring relationships....

 

Concur, at least in part. Little question that the lifestyle is an adaptive response to a tension. I would assert that the tension is between the biological drive for variety (non-monogamy) and the social norm (monogamy). Your assertion that long enduring relationships have social, emotional, and economic benefits is equally true.

 

What's less clear is whether the long-enduring relationship is what makes the lifestyle possible, or reciprocally whether the lifestyle only allows those with long-enduring relationships. What was originally an adaptation layered onto the relationship often becomes foundational to that relationship in the sense that the principles of the lifestyle--honesty, trust, communication and so on--become embedded into daily life. A "chicken-and-egg" question, to be certain--and a good one to be able to ponder!

[lcmim 1,008]

For Connie and I, monogamy was the name of the game for most of our 40 years as a couple. During those years we were occupied with things best managed, for us, as a closed couple, raising children , running a family business, managing our homestead.

In our sixties now, our nest is empty, the business is gradually becoming a pastime more than a necessity, and the long paid for the yard is being allowed to return to nature

 

We have time redirect our course and open things up. The trust , honesty , and openness that made the first 40 tears a success are now coming into play. ( For those keeping count that pun is intended)

 

We tend to gravitate to other couples that are driven by similar desires. For us that is not so much raw sex. We are quite enough for each other in that area. What we want is open, friendship with other successful marriages, that has everything including sex as a possibility. At least for us the pair bonding part of this does play an important part in what we perceive to be "swinging" We have only one longstanding relationship with a non-partnered person.

 

"For everything there is a season and a time for every purpose..." that sums it up nicely.

[Wornsilver 219]

I looked at that word, kept reading...wait a minute, went back and yes, it said "tears." There have to be some tears in those years. Great pun. Thanks.

[lcmim 1,008]

Wornsilver,

That is why I could never make it as a typist. Good Catch

Mike