Monogamy

The same person...the same face, the same body, the same lips, the same everything, from this day forward for the rest of your life.

Can you handle it?

According to some people, it's like hell on earth.

Never before in our history has monogamy been such an issue. Before the middle of the twentieth century, no one every talked about it – you were generally married for life and if you were a man, you had a discreet little bit on the side. If you were a woman, well what does a woman care about sex, anyway, as long as she has a nice shiny new Frigidaire? During the sexual revolution, relationships didn't even last as long as the party did, and then you were on to someone new whose name you never quite got. And then came the eighties. Just when you thought everyone was cool with the idea of casual relationships, along comes AIDS and terrifies everyone back into the safety of long term monogamy. In the aftermath of all this, people in the twenty-first century have grudgingly accepted that committed relationships are probably the healthiest, even if they relish the idea as much as they do vegetarian bacon or tofu pizza. Monogamy may be good for us, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

Is monogamy good for us? If you put any stock in studies undertaken by university scientists, you will find myriad examples of the benefits of marriage: 60% of single women reach the age of sixty-five, whereas 95% of married women do. Drug and alcohol abuse among 500 000 young test subjects dropped sharply among those who married. The University of Chicago recently conducted a study that showed married people make twice as much money, have twice as much sex and experience half the domestic violence as those who co-habit, and the numbers are likely even higher when compared to those who don't live together.

But none of these statistics ever to seem to impress the legions of people who run a mile from marriage and consider monogamy too close to ‘monotony’ for their liking. For them, the sixties and seventies never ended. One taste of unfettered promiscuity and they're hooked, deadly diseases or not. These are the people who seek sanction for their philandering, and try to convince the rest of us that monogamy is unnatural, and ultimately unsustainable, and that we're all just kidding ourselves if we try to pretend otherwise.

One of their favourite arguments is that, as animals, it is our biological imperative to disseminate our DNA as widely as possible. We are driven, they maintain, to have sex with many, many partners in our lifetime so that we have the best odds of living on in the next generation. Most animals don't mate for life, they argue, and so neither should we.

The simplest answer to this argument, before even getting into the obvious benefits of monogamy, is to realize that human beings are animals in physical form only. We have the most advanced brains on the planet, and our ability to reason, form concepts, to think, is unique to us. No dolphin ever landed a man on the moon. No gorilla, no matter how skilled at sign language, ever wrote a novel or charted the human genome or built a skyscraper. There is nothing on earth like a human being, and therefore no comparisons to animals are valid, especially when it comes to something as complicated and ultimately brain-oriented as sex.

While animals mate out of instinct – and sometimes at their own peril, like the various spider and insect males who give their lives to the female after mating – no human being ever mates without engaging their mind on some level. We actively choose to mate or not to, to reproduce or not to, and in every case, we never merely pursue someone simply because they are of the opposite sex. We have sex for more than procreation, whereas animals, with extremely rare exceptions, mate only during their fertile phases and only for the purposes of creating offspring. We also continue to love and care for our children even after they're weaned, which animals don't. Humans and animals are more different than we are alike; arguing that we should be as indiscriminately sexual as they are is ridiculous.

The only argument that's left, then, is that promiscuity is just more fun. It's too boring, opponents of monogamy say. It just isn't exciting enough, being with one person all the time. Some groups have even christened this lifestyle with an official sounding name – “polyamory” – referring to themselves as simply “poly” and maintaining, quite honestly, that they do not see the value in exclusive relationships and would rather carry on several meaningful, if transient, relationships at once. It's more fulfilling, they claim, sharing your life with several partners, never being truly intimate with anyone.

I might actually believe them, I might actually defer to them and acknowledge that while it doesn't work for me, it obviously does for them. I might...if it wasn't so painfully obvious that these people are having anything but fun, are anything but excited, and are exactly what they claim to be avoiding: bored out of their minds.

Promiscuous people are not happy. They are always looking for fulfillment around the corner, for excitement in the next encounter, for the bigger, the better, the more outrageous. They are never satisfied with what they have, but continue to strive toward something that is always out of reach. These people attempt to replace quantity with quality, growing tired with each new adventure and moving on, unsatisfied, to the next. Soon even the briefest of relationships aren't enough, then it must be a stranger. After strangers become boring, they decide two strangers, now that would be really exciting. But when that doesn't work, they have to reach lower and lower, degrade themselves even more, to find that next sexual thrill. When they aren't seeking newer and more outrageous adventures, they're busy running away from something – emotional problems, troubled pasts, flawed ideas about the validity of love... a happy and value-driven life. The inability to find and commit to someone wonderful is a serious character flaw, not a lifestyle that should be held up as a model of human behaviour.

People who claim to enjoy being ‘poly’ must steel themselves against jealousy, an emotion that should, by rights, be a warning sign that they are doing something wrong. The fact that they feel it, or have to try desperately not to feel it when they have to share someone they care about with someone else, is probably the clearest indication there is that this lifestyle is not at all natural for human beings. The proof of this lies in the fact that if it came down to it, if they absolutely had to choose one person from their threesome or group to be with – just one – every single one of them would be able to make that choice. Everyone has a preference, even among people they care about. Everyone knows the one person they want to be with more than anyone else.

There's a loneliness that pervades those who simply flit from one person to the next, a sense that they are missing out on something profound and real. They know, deep down, that the height of love and the best kind of sex is found within long term, mutually exclusive relationships. They know, or should know, that good sex depends on it.

And that's the bottom line when it comes to monogamy. Monogamy affords you the best sex of your life. If you understand, as I mentioned before, that sex for humans is as much about the mind as it is the body, then it makes perfect sense that the most fulfilling sex occurs within a mutually, loving, trusting relationship. Being with one person you love allows you a level of freedom and creativity that you can't possible enjoy with strangers. The intimate bond you form with the person whose character you love as much as their body allows you to explore the dominant and submissive aspects of your natures, without worrying about political correctness or misunderstandings. It allows you to grow, to experiment, to savour each experience and relive it, in reality or in a shared memory. It removes you from the realm of jealousy or competitiveness, and lets you live instead in a safe haven of sexual pleasure and freedom.

It is the only kind of relationship that fosters primacy and privacy, the two most fundamental requirements of a satisfying, long term mutual love. When you slip into the arms of your only love, you know that you are welcome, desired, and that the tiny, subtle little things that give you the most pleasure are understood by your lover, and practiced with care.

With most casual relationships, sex is a special occasion. It is the ultimate goal of the relationship, yet the one thing that always eludes the players, who chase after it and connive ways to get it and who ultimately only get to enjoy it with relative infrequency. Monogamy provides you with an opportunity to enjoy sex every day of your life, in every way, infusing even your non-sexual moments with a tinge of excitement and expectation. Spontaneity is much easier when you're married to your lover – if the mood hits when you're retiling the kitchen, you can make love right then and there. You certainly don't have to plan for a Saturday night date and spend all evening wondering whether it's going to happen and how good it will be. You can kiss the back of your wife's neck while she's working, or caress your husband's penis while you're watching TV, neither of which necessarily lead to sex but which reinforce your sensual bond with each other and keep the proverbial romantic fires lit. There's just no replacing that kind of constant, enriching, loving sexuality, no matter how many new faces or bodies catch your eye.

Looking into the eyes of the person you admire most in the world only heightens the physical sensation of sex; looking into the eyes of a stranger only takes away from it. Your attitude towards monogamy makes you confront the question of which you want more.

Copyright © Leanne Bell
And they lived happily ever after

Take the Taken In Hand tour


Have you seen the following articles?
Is there consent?
Taken In Hand relationships are hot and close
Who says you have to be submissive?
White hot intensity and boundless joy
He who dares, wins
The alpha male and masculine power
Communication
The resistant woman
The healing power of taking her in hand
Do you have a commanding presence?

Monogamy is good for you?

Well, that's a real passion killer. Of all the reasons for being monogamous, the dreariest and most off-putting for me is the notion that it's 'good' for you.

Perhaps they should put 'monogamy can prolong your life' on marriage certificates, as an inducement to people to marry, as if the only goal of human existence was to live as long as possible.

If anything could make me want to go out and start sleeping around again (not that I'd find this easy at my time of life), it's the notion that I'm doing something that's good for me, like eating some dreary breakfast cereal or doing aerobics or something.

Monogamous people live longer, but the wickedly promiscuous person might argue that they don't actually live longer, that it just seems like that, because their lives are so incredibly dull.

Addictive Promiscuity

Promiscuity starts out fun and exciting, like an addictive drug. And, just like an addictive drug, each taste demands more. Each taste satisfies less. Finally, each taste becomes disgusting, and yet the demand keeps growing.

KrosRogue

Animals in Form Only?

One of the things I've been itching to say, when I hear all this talk about how male dominance is somehow the rule because it dates back to our pre-human ancestors, is that monogamy is NOT natural to our primate relatives. And yet we practice it and we are horrified at those who do not.

If we can put promiscuouity (which is rampant amongst our nearest relative, the bonobo), and say, we have risen above our animal origins to embrace monogamy, then by the same token, today we have risen above our animal origins to embrace male/female equality.

Now there's a neat bit of logic that makes perfect sense to me.

Old Message for a New Day

In an age when *alternative* lifestyles are all the rage, it is refreshing to read a levelheaded perspective on an ancient truth.

There are reasons why our ancestors did things the way they did them. Viewed from a secular standpoint, marriage - and, by implication, monogamy - may have evolved over time. Regardless of the origins, its all but universal acceptance through the ages is a testimonial to the intrinsic power in two becoming as one.

The curious thing about monogamy is that, regardless of whether one argues from a religious or secular perspective, the insights are always the same. Faithfulness to another human being is better both for the individuals involved as well as the society in which they live.

Nor is - within the bounds of marriage - encouraging couples to straighten out their relationship *by means of a twig laid to the backside in the bedroom* necessarily a bad idea.

In a couple of weeks, many Americans will celebrate Thanksgiving. The people who celebrated the original seventeenth century Thanksgiving were religious separatists who permitted domestic chastisement and eschewed what today we call *alternative* lifestyles.

Less well known is - even by Americans who have eaten traditional turkey and dressing at Thanksgiving for as long as they can remember - that real domestic violence was rare, if not non-existent, among the so-called Puritans in the New World.

By no means are the benefits of monogamy confined to a relatively obscure seventeenth century religious sect.

Many twenty-first century Londoners were shocked to discover a double-digit rate of chlamydia among their neighbors. While calls for increased funding of sexual health services is one possible solution, a much cheaper remedy is - since chlamydia is easy to treat but costly to screen - monogamy among the currently promiscuous.

Monogamy shouldn't have a monopoly

Promiscuous people are not happy. They are always looking for fulfillment around the corner, for excitement in the next encounter, for the bigger, the better, the more outrageous. They are never satisfied with what they have, but continue to strive toward something that is always out of reach.

How many promiscuous people did the author study, and how did she do it? Could it be that she hates the thought that some promiscuous people might actually be happy? Might it be that they're not addicted, but simply like variety? Is it possible that they sometimes find that what they want is not out of reach?

She talks about polyamorous people, and then turns them into promiscuous people in the next but one paragraph. And predictably she describes polyamorists as

… sharing [their] life with several partners, never being truly intimate with anyone. … [they have] anything but fun, are anything but excited, and are exactly what they claim to be avoiding: bored out of their minds.

If she ever gets around to reading what polyamorists write, she'll find they're solemnly faithful, know as much about intimacy as anyone, and are having a lot more fun than the average monogamist.

If monogamy can be so much fun, why has it been experiencing a crisis for decades? Divorce is soaring and marriage is rapidly transmuting into serial monogamy, with huge numbers of people as the casualties. It seems that with increasing prosperity, freedom, and longevity, our sexual aspirations are rising past the point where traditional marriage can meet them.

Spontaneity is much easier when you're married to your lover – if the mood hits when you're retiling the kitchen, you can make love right then and there.

No, spontaneity isn't so easy. Years of marriage can build up bad habits that drive out spontaneity and build up sexual blockage. I would guess that not five marriages in a hundred fulfil the warm picture that Leanne Bell paints.

[This is where I started to find nicer things to say about monogamy.]

Looking around, I try to guess what relationships yield the greatest happiness and sexual fulfilment (and I know these are different things). I have to guess, because I have few confidantes in this area. One type of relationship seems to be: marriage between sexually unambitious people. These are mostly older people, of generations that regard today's sex obsessions as absurd.

Another successful type of relationship seems to be the one based on BDSM. This is between people who by definition are sexually ambitious and have the nerve to experiment. The self-revelations in the blogs on Informed Consent, http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/, demonstrate as much passion, fidelity, joy and pain, as any monogamous marriage.

I agree that a committed, enduring relationship offers an opportunity that promiscuity doesn't: the opportunity for the erotic connection to grow ever wider and deeper, year by year. And it needs to, because if sex isn't growing, it's withering. But how many monogamous relationships are growing in this way? My guess: the Taken in Hand relationships and, more widely, the BDSM relationships.

Theo
chas_dar@yahoo.co.uk

Bonobo Booboo

The fact that females seem to dominate bonobo society may explain both why the species never made it out of the tree and why the species is poised to move from a five-digit population for a four-digit population.

Monogamous Puritans

Well, they don't seem to have been all that averse to interesting sexual practices. According to Bill Bryson, in 'Made in America', just half a century after the arrival of the pilgrms, Boston was 'filled with prostitutes', and Williamsburg, despite its modest size, contained three brothels "though curiously none of those have been incorporated into the sanatized replica community so poular with visitors today" as he observes.

It was possible for someone who was tired of monogomy to get rid of a tiresome spouse by means of an accusation of witchcraft. In 1651, when the wife of a Hugh Parsons of Springfield, Massachusetts, complained that her husband sometimes threw "pease about the howse and made me pick them up" and occasionaly in his sleep made "a gablings noyse" the town fathers saw at once that this was witchcraft and hanged him from the nearest gibbet.

Fornication was so common in New England that at least one parish had forms printed up in which the guilty parties could confess by filling in their names and paying a small fine. By the 1770s, about half of all New England women were pregnant at marriage.

And let's not forget the good old New England custom of 'bundling' whereby it was customary for a unmarried couple to spend the night together before marriage, to see if they suited. Although the idea was that they were supposed to remain chaste, about a third became pregnant, and by 1782, bundling was so casually regarded that it was 'but a courtesy' for a visitor to ask the young lady of the house if she cared to retire with him.
(All the above information comes from 'Made in America' by Bill Bryson, an absolutely riveting book.)

Not all that puritanical, those Puritans.

The Puritans Took Charlie's Head

Those early immigrants to America were largely non-puritans in that they realized that it was impossible to reform the Church of England - a church that present day Englishmen have largely abandoned. The true Puritans stayed at home and dealt with Charles I and, for a while, ran things.

Even on the original Mayflower voyage, not all passengers were religious separatists. For example, among the passengers were investors driven by greed and poor immigrants seeking a better life.

The seventeenth century Plymouth Colony was not a utopia - which is why several crimes were punishable by death and adultery was punished by whipping.

Certainly later New England was not without sin. Then, one should remember where most of the seventeen-century immigrants came from at a time when England was in absolute turmoil and, as it would later be in the Soviet Union, dissent was a crime!

By the late eighteenth century it has been estimated that a quarter of Britain citizenry resided in America.

The difference between early fornicators in America and those of today is those in the eighteenth and nineteenth century the tended to marry the person with whom they slept. Likewise, it is estimate that half of colonial children lived with single parents at some point before their eighteenth birthday. Only those early single parents were the products of untimely death rather than acrimonious divorce.

Divorce or death?

The thing about divorce is, because it was very difficult to come by before the 20th century, we have no way of knowing how many marriages would have ended in divorce had it been more easily obtainable. For all we know, the divorce rate might have been as high then as it is today, had it been as easy to divorce then as now. In societies where divorce is readily available, people always seem happy to take advantage of it. I feel that if you're going to end up as a single parent, it's better to be through divorce rather than death.

I heard recently about an agreeable custom that exists under shia law in Iran,temporary marriage, whereby you can be married for any period of time from five minutes to three hundred years. Instead of the rather daunting 'till death do you part' the clergyman declares you married for 'a certain period of time'. This gets around the severe Muslim laws against fornication.

Noone's post on monogomy

Noone,

I am not disgreeing with your post, but simply asking for clarification on a couple of points.

When you refer to 'Godless alternative lifestyles', what did you have in mind? For some people, a monogomous relationship which has not been made 'legal' is equally as 'alternative' as one in which a couple indulge in something like wife swapping or even polygamy, and I feel that 'alternative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. After all, to many people in the 'vanilla' world, a couple who use spanking as a form of discipline are leading an 'alternative' (some might even say BDSM) lifestyle.

I also wonder how, given the different standards of the past, we can be sure, "that real domestic violence was rare, if not non-existent, among the so-called Puritans in the New World". Who is to say that, in those far off days, it was not considered perfectly acceptable for a man to 'chastise' his wife to the extent that she would carry visible bruises and other injuries that today would be classed as 'domestic violence'?

'natural' monogamy?

Far from enjoying 'all but universal acceptance,' monogamous marriages have been relatively rare in human societies for most of history: ethnographic studies show that upwards of 80% of societies have practiced some form of polygyny. On a tangential note, I'm rather amused at the sociobiological/evolutionary arguments that are put forth in favour of male dominance, especially since it's rather obvious that the people making the arguments have a very sketchy idea of how evolution actually works. To be fair, this site doesn't feature much of that, but the Gor folks seem to be obsessed with proving that their chosen lifestyle has some sort of 'natural' mandate.

Survival of the Species

Without getting into a theological discussion, perhaps the best description of *godless alternative lifestyles* constitutes anything which, over time, is not conducive to the procreation and raising of children. That said, it is not to say that everyone must get married or have children. However, those who couple should do so in a heterosexual and permanent basis in relative domestic tranquility.

Nevertheless, regardless of individual preferences and practices, traditional taken in hand relationships are premised on an arrangement that facilitates the creation, protecting, and nurturing of young. Attempts to deviate from that prescription have not been shown to produce any better results over time. In biology, it is called survival of the species.

Since, absent some fanciful belief in a *magic mud puddle*, all life was created by a force greater than ourselves whom we call God, then significant variations in lifestyle from tried and true practices may be thought of as godless and alternative.

This is the first article I'v

This is the first article I've read on this website which truly disappointed me. I appreciate the intent of examining the positive side of monogamy. But I wish the author had stuck to a positive message.

To me this reads a bit like a proud mother who can't conceive of a couple being childless by choice and being happy and content with that. To her, marriage isn't happy and fulfilling without children.

Maybe said mother would do better to concentrate on what makes her happy having children, and not try to prove the virtues of motherhood by running down couples who choose not to have children.

Just a thought.

Limited Understanding of Polyamory and Jealousy

You condemn polyamory, but the way you describe it suggests that you don't really have a full understanding of the way it works. Since you seem to be drawing from a few anecdotal experiences, I'll do the same.

My friend X has been in a poly relationship for many years now, and it actually meets her needs. She has a wife, with whom she lives and pays bills, and this is her primary relationship. She also has a girlfriend, who she loves, though it has become a long distance relationship. They see each other a few times a year, though, and most recently spent a week traveling through New Mexico, unwinding and enjoying each other. Her girlfriend has a live-in boyfriend, who is a good friend to X.

Currently, that's the extent of it. She was dating another woman for a while, but they just didn't have much of a spark, so now they are just friends, though they keep their weekly rent-a-movie-and-hang-out date. S's partner has had some other relationships (I'm not as familiar with her life). They communicate with each other very well-- and isn't open and honest communication key to any relationship? They accept that they can't meet all of each other's needs (nobody can), and they avoid the codependence (aka lesbian merging syndrome) that can be such a problem in monogamous relationships. They don't doubt that they love each other deeply, so they don't feel anxious about it.

The thing is, they don't have a lot of problems with jealousy. They communicate and trust each other to respect the boundaries they adopt. I, however, who am in a monogamous long term relationship, have had a lot more problems with jealousy, because my partner feels jealous if I spend any time with friends. Does the fact that she's jealous mean I'm doing something wrong if I have dinner with a friend? No, of course not! It means that she has insecurities she has to deal with, and I support her in dealing with it- but I'm still social. However, if we were to follow your advice (that struggling with jealousy means someone's doing something wrong), I would be locked up inside with no internet, phone, or any contact with the outside world.

I guess I'm most concerned that you seem to compare polyamory with anonymous promiscuity, when all polyamory really means is a mutual redefining of boundaries. If the people involved weren't into anonymous promiscuity before they got together, they're not likely to include anonymous promiscuity in the relationship structure they create.

I'm not saying that polyamory = good, wile monogamy = bad. They're just two different relationship structures, which both require a lot of work and communication to be successful.

I think the reason people kee

I think the reason people keep having affairs is more so because once they've had one another won't matter much. People are known as cheaters in the eyes of their spouse and usually they want to know nothing more. If it's happened it's happened and the couple will take it from there: the amount of times usually no one wants to know about, 1 is no better than 10 times. I doubt any marriage counselor would bring up numbers when trying to fix a relationship. It's possible they will compare it to drugs depending on the individual and say the person is addicted to the thrill, excitement, or just sex in general.

Well I am surprised that we q

Well I am surprised that we question monogamy now... as far as I am concerned this form of commitment helped us through the centuries. As for polygamy I can only associate it with chaos.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.