A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
By monogamy do you mean having one partner, and only one partner, for life? That isn't the norm. It's very rare, at least in the western world.
Serial monogamy is the norm, and seems to make the most sense for most people.
Polygamy and polyamory only work for a small subset of people. I don't see those types of relationships ever becoming mainstream.
Know the difference between polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy isn't that uncommon but is often used to serve patriarchal hierarchies. Polyamory is much closer to "do whatever" (though that's not strictly true).
I'm trans and let me tell you so many of us are polyamorous. In my personal experience it has to do with spending so much time fighting against society to claim our identity that we end up questioning a lot of social norms. I think that more people than we realize could live very happily being poly, and if we had better poly representation more people would know how to approach it in a healthy way. But it doesn't serve the hierarchies we live under to let people love freely in that way, so it gets othered in media and by governments.
Also the "groups" you're talking about teaming up in are typically called polycules. There are a lot of forms they can take it is an umbrella term.
I think that as people are made more aware of the harm caused by some aspects of society we'll be better at questioning things like monogamy as a whole. It isn't an overnight thing. Also, often even in the poly community it is considered an unstable way to raise children (I don't agree with this but it is a common enough sentiment). I don't think polyamory will overtake monogamy certainly not any time in my life but I hope it becomes more common.
I think monogamous people could all do with a dose of the lessons and the vocabulary the polyamory community has developed over the years. Even if they never have more than one partner it helps to have the words to talk about things and the awareness of when you might be treating your partner unfairly out of emotional reflexes.
Polyamory has taught me more about healthy relationships in 3 years than 14 years in a monogamous marriage did.
Where would one find this vocabulary?
ETA: I may have answered my own question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Here's a decent one with lots of queer terms too: https://www.readyforpolyamory.com/polyamory-glossary
I think polyamory is an immutable part of someone's sexual orientation as much as the gender preference spectrum (homo/heterosexual) and the intensity/situationalness (ace/gray-ace/demi). I think some people just naturally see sex and intimate relationships as something they can do openly with multiple people and some people just don't. I think it will become more acceptable for the people who see sex that way to find each other and express their love that way, the same as with all the other sexual relationships between consenting adults are becoming more acceptable. But the same way it would be silly to say we'll all be homosexual eventually I don't think we'll all be poly someday either.
It appears to be pretty stable through history and prehistory around the world, so it's probably biological. Occasionally cultures allow limited exceptions but they're usually one-sided. This lines up with my personal experience, which is that some people are capable of being poly, but most people just aren't.
With the amount of people who cheat, I would say most people are but not ethically.
Thatβsβ¦ not true? Monogamy was not the primary form of bonding through humanityβs history. It actually is only recently a global phenomenon, mostly due to European colonialism and the spread of Christianity.
You really need to show some data or sources to backup such a claim tbh. It contradicts most of anthropology of bonding and relationships.
Well, here's the Wikipedia. To be clear, I'm counting a society where elite men might have multiple wives as still monogamous, since that's not representative of an average member of the population and the wives themselves are still bound to a single partner. Maybe that's a terminology error but for the sake of this question I think it's clearest.
And yeah, as someone pointed out there's an amount of infidelity in every human society, but it's generally neither endorsed by the legitimate partner or society at large, at least not as an actual relationship.
The wiki says out of ~1200 societies studied only ~180 were monogamous. And that 16% of the monogamous were not strictly monogamous. I donβt know why the wiki would help your case.
If you didn't read the rest of the paragraph, you should. It was comparing against variants of polygamy, plus 2 cultures that had polyandry, which I discussed elsewhere. Western-style polyamory didn't even make the rankings. I can only think of one other culture (the Mosuo) that might count.
Like I said, it might be an abuse of terminology to call this all monogamy, but natural language is inherently imprecise and this isn't an academic audience that can digest heavy jargon.
Polyamory is already mainly an upper class thing.
You are hard-pressed to find poly groups in rural areas and blue collar workers. It's usually first-world college educated urbanites.
Is cheating and having secret partners considered polyamory? If so, then it certainly exists abundantly amongst all classes.
A core tenant of polyamory is consent. Without consent from all partners to be in multiple relationships, itβs just infidelity.
So no, secret partners isnβt polyamory. Polyamory is a form of ethical, or consensual, non-monogamy, and infidelity is both unethical and non consensual.
Serial monogamy. Each partnership is between two people but a person may seek multiple partnerships simultaneously or in sequence.
First world urbanites for sure, but as far as I can tell there's many that are pretty poor by that standard, as queer people often are. I guess I know less about the circumstances of their birth.
I'm guessing rising costs of living may push some young people to poly lifestyles where a polycule lives together and shares bills
It'll probably be a factor, but then you could do the same with roommates, and the historical pattern is of course multi-generational homes. That's what I see happening more and more in real life - it's becoming less unusual to live with parents as an adult.
I think monogamy will continue to be the default MO of relationships although divorce will become more common as life expectancy keeps increasing. I also think acceptance of other relationship models will increase but I doubt they'll become prominent among lower classes, having one partner already is a lot of work and people with little in terms of money and perspective are unlikely to be able to afford that full attention for another partner. (yes cheating is a thing, it usually also involves either a reduction in relationship activity with the cheated on or a relationship light with the affair partner)
Anecdotally speaking, probably not. I haven't seen many poly relationships really last, nor have many of my friends (all queer).
I do see the rise of grandparents caring for children as a thing though, as wages continue to stagnate and both parents are forced to work. Intergenerational housing too. Multiple friends buying houses nearby and caring for kids if one parent is fiscally fortunate enough to be stay at home. That sort of thing.
That's just daycare with less steps.
It is!
Monogamy assumes marriage is a natural thing people do. People are getting married later or not at all in increasing numbers.
I don't even think monogamous marriage is the main relationship style if you consider people that have affairs, divorced people, serial monogamist, etc., not part of monogamy. It's over represented in media but that norm has changed a bunch in recent years as well.
There are also tons of relationships that aren't marriage. FWB, poly, one night stands, etc.
I think the question could use a rework to clarify if you mean legally, socially, etc., as well.
Itβs worth noting that polyamory and marriage arenβt mutually exclusive. Plenty of polyam people are married and even have non-legally binding marriage to multiple people. Thereβs a movement to make plural marriage legal because these people have the depth of relationship with more than one person that really should warrant the protections of marriage (like hospital visitation, legal protections re being forced to testify against a spouse in court, tax filing purposes, and child rearing, etc).
The main problem with polyamory is the jealousy. I have experienced jealousy maybe three to five times in life, because I was an only child and I have a very laid back temperament. I think if we start prioritizing quality of life more as a society, parents will be free to raise their children well with less insecurities, and maybe that would result in more people gravitating towards polyamory. But it's really not for everyone. Poly is hard work.
OK now keep up with me:
You forgot "fully automatic"
Monogamous relationships are hard. I expect romantic groups are far harder.
The upper class has had mistresses and chains of relationships forever. Likely easiest with their resources.
Monogamous relationships are hard. I expect romantic groups are far harder.
This is very true. Even with parallel polyamorous relationships, relationship difficulty is turned up to high. When you introduce polycules to the mix with triads, quads, or more people it takes that Duffy and ramps it up tenfold.
A triad, for example, isnβt just a relationship with 3 people. Itβs 4 different relationships that have to be managed (AB, AC, BC, and ABC, are all distinctive relationships with unique needs). A quad, is 7 relationships. Going up to 5 people is something like 22 relationships to manage. So group relationships like this are pretty rare, even in the polyam world.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, the vast majority of people under 50 seem to be in polyamorous relationships. I'm fairly new to poly, but I've done a lot of reading and therapy, and it's working out pretty well for me.
I do tend to be people's anchor partner, so I've admittedly never experienced the pain that comes from being a secondary when you wish you were a primary. My anchor partner tends more towards relationship anarchy and doesn't like hierarchical relationships, but i made it clear that my expectation is to be the priority in her life. We've made it work, although it takes a lot of communication.
PNW poly gang!
Poly can be such a wild learning curve and so much personal growth. There can be a lot of heartbreak in being poly (my polycule split in half a while back, I've gone from 5 to 2 partners this year, my anchor of several years broke up with me over text recently I'm pretty devastated over that one), but so much love too it is all worth it imo. And not having to rely on one person for everything is great for everyone's mental health. Breakups are a lot easier to manage because you don't have to seek romantic/physical comfort from strangers or the other side of the breakup, there are other partners around to help comfort you.
And yeah, so much communication, and introspection, and evaluating social norms to figure out what parts are toxic. You really have to learn about your partners and be really clear with boundaries for everything to work well.
Some animals mate for life or mate exclusively, others don't. It's not "the main form of earth," it's the norm by which humans establish long-term romantic and sexual relationships and raise their young.
I don't think society will forget that any time soon, but it's hard to predict the future. Culture does change over time.
We have already seen a huge change as it's much more acceptable to be in more relationships and getting a divorce. If people start to live a lot longer you will see people changing relationships more. With AI there is already worry about people getting into romantic relationships with AI partners.
If we ever achieve long-term life extension, I could see monogamy being tossed. Being with a single partner for life can serve well if it's the ideal of both parties in the relationship. But extend that lifespan to multiple times the current one, and I can see it getting pretty iffy.
I wouldn't be surprised if we got to Huxley's Brave New World, but I would hate it