The irony of monogamy

July 26, 10:47 PMCleveland Open Relationships ExaminerGaylen Moore

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Open Relationships Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

For many people, committing to monogamy, is like ordering salad in a restaurant. They choose it because they think it's good for them, but they can never entirely stop noticing the nice juicy steaks or heaping scoops of ice cream being served at the tables nearby. If we believe the traditional stereotypes, monogamy comes somewhat naturally for women, but not so naturally for men. Women are typically seen as seeking commitment, whereas men are seen as trying avoid commitment as long as possible – accepting "the old ball and chain" only when forced to do so by the women in their lives. Even for those men who apparently want monogamy, the commitment to monogamy is frequently experienced not as a joy in itself, but rather as a form of sacrifice. (See What is it with Men and Commitment, Anyway? pages 17 and 18.) Men often see marriage as forcing them to "grow up" – which is often seen as a rather frightening and unwelcomed prospect. Also, a man whose spiritual values lead him to believe that sex outside of monogamous marriage is sinful can still feel a rather relentless urge to sample other options on the menu.

From a logical and scientific perspective it is not at all clear that life-long monogamy is the most practical or natural form of mating relationship. Given the statistical rates of infidelity and divorce (which are not nearly as high as some people claim, but are nevertheless significant), it is clear that many people never achieve the seemingly fanciful ideal of life-long monogamy. In reality the choices seems to be between serial monogamy and some form of non-monogamy, such as swinging, polyamory, or cheating. In light of this, we are faced with some interesting sociological and historical questions. How and why did so many human cultures come to see monogamy as the ideal form of mating relationship? And is it, in fact, the most practical, the most natural, and the most spiritually rewarding path in life? Given that interpersonal relationships have so many dimensions, levels, and complexities, why did we historically come to focus on sex as the make-or-break criteria for defining the nature of a relationship? And given the unquestionably powerful urge to explore our erotic options, why did life-long monogamy become the ideal, guiding principle of marriage?

Given the sociological realities of modern life, it is easy to see why most individuals today hold life-long monogamy as their personal goal. We are inundated all of our lives with socially sanctioned images of the romantic ideal of "till death do us part" monogamy. Through friends, family, and all forms of mass media, we are taught to project our natural needs for love, companionship, community, and spiritual meaning on to our romantic-life partner. We are taught that we need to find our soulmate, get married, have children, and grow old together in a sexually monogamous union sanctioned by God and government because otherwise we will be condemned to live lonely, shallow, spiritually degraded lives. This is an amazingly powerful message that goes deep into the very core of our sense of self-worth, and aside from becoming a priest or nun, there are basically no government-sanctioned, socially celebrated alternatives available to us. And thus it comes to pass that we become obsessed with sexual monogamy over and above the many other dimensions of relationship and types of fidelity. But again the question is: How and why did this become our modern-day reality? Were we biologically predestined to be this way? Or are we the living in the shadow of historical accidents?

The biological evidence is controversial, but a very general scientific conclusion is fairly safe to make: most species do not favor monogamy, and even in those species that are categorized as monogamous, there is strong evidence that cheating is common. If biology can explain monogamy at all, the most it can explain is a form of serial monogamy with cheating. As for the sociological angle, one has to admit that archeological and historical evidence concerning the origins of monogamy is scare and controversial. There is, however, a logically compelling story that can be told that is backed up with at least some shreds of plausible evidence. It can be argued that the concept of monogamous marriage ultimately stems from men's attempts to keep track of the lineage of offspring in early historic times. By the standards of our modern sensibilities, monogamy may have been an improvement over what appears to have been millions of years of polygany (the practice of one man having two or more wives, which is often confused with the term polygamy, which means have more than one spouse).

As an exercise in creative imagination, we are asked to consider the following scenario: Given the nature of sexual reproduction, women always know which children are theirs, so as long as a family's name and wealth are passed through the female line (matrilineal descent) there is no problem. But if men want to pass the family name and inheritance through the male line (patrilineal decent) then things get messy. This much can be said on the basis of sheer logic: If men want to be sure that they are passing their name and wealth to their biological offspring, they need to know that their mates are monogamous. Even prior to the rise of civilization and the concept of inheritable wealth, one can detect obvious biological pressures to keep female sexual behavior committed to a single male, but once civilization takes hold and great sums of wealth are on the line, the biological pressures are supplemented by very powerful social and political pressures.

What this ultimately means is that, for the purposes of biology and patrilineal decent, men don't have to be monogamous, but women do.

The only way to make a system of patrilineal decent work is to keep close track of biological fatherhood, and the only practical way to do this (until very recently, with the invention of genetic paternity testing) was for men take control of women's sexuality. Thanks to the notion of patrilineal decent, women became property, and women's virginity became a prize of great value, both economically and socio-politically. To make all of this work, some very powerful motivational forces were needed – something more practical than just physical strength and endless jealous aggression. Here the concept of divinity became very useful. To make a long story short, the "Great Goddess" became "God the Father," and "Mother Earth" became a resource to be conquered and divided into units of property.

Other consequences of the rise of male dominance came along as well: male children became more desirable than female children. Historically, the vast majority of infanticide involves female children  (See also here), and terms like "whore" and "slut" became popular while no parallel derogatory terms ever became popular for promiscuous men. (Indeed, male promiscuity has typically been a source of male pride -- "virility" and so on.)

The bottom line is that monogamy may have its roots in the control of female sexuality so that men could keep track of their lineage, thus historically linking monogamy with women's oppression throughout human history. And in a final huge ironic twist, the modern stereotype requires that women have to nail men down and make them commit to monogamy!

It can thus be argued that the use of monogamy as a defining feature of success in long-term relationships is little more than a major historical power play for which untold millions of people have paid with unnecessary emotional pain and in many cases literal bloodshed. None of this means that monogamy, as such, in necessarily bad, but it should give us pause for thought. Before putting all of their emotional eggs into the monogamy basket, people (especially women) might do well to seriously consider the possible historical roots of their own desire for monogamy. As children we are instilled with social values that, as adults, we must sometimes reconsider in light of our own mature interests, and the ever-changing times in which we live.

No one doubts that some people (maybe even a majority of people) are best-suited for some form of a monogamous lifestyle – whether it be life-long monogamy, or serial monogamy. What considerations of the possible historical origins of monogamy may lead us to wonder, however, is whether monogamy should be taken as the one and only lifestyle worthy of public approval and social celebration. Perhaps it is a simple fact of life that the best path for some people is some form of non-monogamy. Living as we do now, with the option of genetic paternity testing, it could be that the original motivation for the widespread social endorsement of monogamy as the "one true path" for a spiritually rewarding and socially fruitful life is now gone.