Pros & Cons of a Monogamous Relationship

Anthropology, History, Psychology, Sociology and other related areas.

Pros & Cons of a Monogamous Relationship

Postby Sisyphus on December 12th, 2007, 2:42 pm 

What are the pros and cons of a monogamous relationship?
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby LUIX on December 12th, 2007, 3:00 pm 

A lot less STD's.
LUIX
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 06 Dec 2007


Postby Sisyphus on December 12th, 2007, 3:13 pm 

LUIX wrote:A lot less STD's.

Is that in or out of a monogamous relationship?
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby Glen on December 12th, 2007, 3:30 pm 

After giving it a little thought, I suppose that on the pro side, you can know that your partner is not going to have sex outside the relationship and is going to be totally committed to you. On the con side, the same will be true of you. But the more I think about it, isn't half a monogamous relationship better than none? Yes, I believe that it is! Yes indeed.
Last edited by Glen on December 12th, 2007, 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glen
Banned User
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Location: A backstreet.
Likes received:1


Postby Sisyphus on December 12th, 2007, 3:35 pm 

Glen wrote:But then again, isn't half a monogamous relationship is better than none!

Is it really?
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby Glen on December 12th, 2007, 3:41 pm 

Well, if your partner doesn't find out, of course it is. It's the best of both worlds.
Glen
Banned User
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Location: A backstreet.
Likes received:1


Postby LUIX on December 12th, 2007, 3:59 pm 

Obviously there would be less STD's in a monogamous relationship.
At Glen,
what you said is false. Cheating is defenitley not the best of the two worlds.. It cripples both relationships because you cannot live out and be 100% open with your original or monogamous partner. And you would have to screw around behind bushes and lie about what you did and where you just where which I think we all know isn't positive. And on the other hand, a secretive and hidden relationship cannot be the equivalent of the best of one world.
That is what I think.
LUIX
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 06 Dec 2007


Postby Glen on December 13th, 2007, 10:42 am 

Sorry LUIX, I was playing devil's advocate. Let me continue. What if both partners decide that polygamy would be more fulfilling than monogamy? That would take away the element of deception.
Glen
Banned User
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Location: A backstreet.
Likes received:1


Postby LUIX on December 13th, 2007, 12:01 pm 

The devil doesn't need an advocate, everyone knows he is the bad guy...
And why would that other case be more fulfilling? More sex? I still think you would be too devided to live out both relationships fully. And all that sharing your partner would be doing might work and even more probably might not.
LUIX
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 06 Dec 2007


Postby Sisyphus on December 13th, 2007, 12:46 pm 

Glen wrote:What if both partners decide that polygamy would be more fulfilling than monogamy? That would take away the element of deception.

Then it wouldn't really be monogamy, would it? I'm not sure if that's a pro or con either.
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby Glen on December 13th, 2007, 1:37 pm 

In a monogamous relationship, the con is that choice is no longer a choice!
Glen
Banned User
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Location: A backstreet.
Likes received:1


Postby Sisyphus on December 13th, 2007, 2:37 pm 

More like a con, rather than the con.
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby cantskate on December 13th, 2007, 4:13 pm 

If you can find a group of people that don't have a problem with not being monogamous then more power to you, but if you can't then don't screw your partner over and cheat on them. It's pathetic and inexcusable, and it really hurts the person being cheated on (unless the person you're in a relationship with makes it clear it isn't an issue). Personally, I think that monogamy is preferable and moral. It's more constructive and the relationships a monogamous relationship produces seem to be much stronger and more positive. Plus it just makes more sense to me to have one great relationship than a few good ones (or casual ones as the case may be).
cantskate
Member
 
Posts: 295
Joined: 30 Oct 2007


Disclaimer!

Postby Glen on December 13th, 2007, 5:05 pm 

I want to make it clear that I'm playing devil's advocate here. What that means is that I will argue the side that is generally considered to be the wrong one.

Cantskate,

Do you have evidence that monogamous relationships are more constructive and much stronger than polygamous relationships? I assume you're not speaking from experience, so how did you come to this determination. And what makes you think that you can't have two great relationships? Why do you believe that more than one relationship will cause a dilution?
Glen
Banned User
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Location: A backstreet.
Likes received:1


Postby dreamersetsail on December 14th, 2007, 12:48 am 

Hmm, personally I think that the "pros and cons" of a monogamous relationship are pretty subjective, depending on the individual. It's hard to say whether there are any definitive pros and cons concerning a monogamous relationship.

Anyway, I agree that the lowered risk of STD's can be a pro, however what if the other partner is cheating on the other partner during their "monogamous" relationship? is that pro even considered relevant anymore? for myself, I prefer a monogamous relationship. My reason being, is that there is less emotional stressors when focusing on a singler lover, and a lesser chance of instigating any dramatic/ emotional fallout that may occur when having intimate experiences with multiple people. It also gives me a sense of control--being that I am dedicating myself to a single person and not being overpowered by sexual/ physical impulses and compulsions, which tends to drive polygomist/ open relationships. Also, I would also be reducing the chances of unwanted pregnancy. And besides, the world is having enough kids, isn't it time we chilled out on the breeding?

As for cons, I can't quite think of many, but perhaps I can try. Being too fixated on having a monogamous relationship may lead to being married with someone you don't really love. Because you are so intent on being with one person, you restrict and minimize your chances of meeting someone better. Hmmm--can't really think of any other cons, but I suppose that the best answer would be that overall it depends on the person; some feel comfortable having an open relationship for whatever reasons, and others prefer monogamous relationships for whatever reasons...what are the pros and cons of the color blue? anyone? haha
User avatar
dreamersetsail
Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: 01 Jan 2007


Re: Disclaimer!

Postby cantskate on December 14th, 2007, 6:12 am 

Glen wrote:Cantskate,

Do you have evidence that monogamous relationships are more constructive and much stronger than polygamous relationships? I assume you're not speaking from experience, so how did you come to this determination. And what makes you think that you can't have two great relationships? Why do you believe that more than one relationship will cause a dilution?


I said that's what I think personally, it's an opinion of mine (not a fact). I didn't mean for it to be taken as fact.
cantskate
Member
 
Posts: 295
Joined: 30 Oct 2007


Postby jped on December 22nd, 2007, 1:04 am 

there really are no pros and cons its all dependant on your personal views really. If you are capable of being with someone and not being monogomous while your partner expects that you be...you really only have to ethical options..suck it up and see if its worth it..or leave them. If your partner is open to others outside the relationship..in order for it to not sabotage it you have to be open and honest...and if this isnt possible then the relationsip wouldnt work. The only real answer i can give you is that you will be happy when u find someone who has the same needs and expectations as you in a relationship whether it be monogomous or not.
jped
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 04 Nov 2007


Postby Paul Anthony on December 26th, 2007, 12:05 am 

A comedian (I can't remember which one) said he didn't understand why there is so much fuss about same-sex marriages. All marriages are same-sex marriages - it's the same sex, night after night! Okay, that would be a con.

Here's a pro: Monogamy is less costly. I wish I could get back all the money I spent chasing women!

You can't really get to know another person unless you live with them - through the good times and the bad. Although I'm not sure if that's a pro or a con. I guess it would depend on the ratio of good times vs bad times. My ex-wife and I had 10 good years together. Unfortunately, we were married for 17 years. :-)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Likes received:4


Postby Sisyphus on December 26th, 2007, 11:29 am 

Paul Anthony wrote:Here's a pro: Monogamy is less costly.

That's a big pro.
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby Forest_Dump on December 26th, 2007, 1:36 pm 

Well, since anthropologists since the 19th century have been as obsessed as missionaries with the topic of sex and kinship (see M. Head's works or Malinowski's (somewhat mistitled) "The Sexual Life of Savages", etc.) I think I can offer some insights here.

First, I will mention that, from a Darwinian perspective, it is worth noting that women are "k-selected" because they invest so much time per child while men are "r-selected" because, from a genetic point of view, their role is done in minutes. However, that doesn't really tell us that much because culture has a habit of over-riding.

So, just how common is our (older?) pattern of life-time monogamy? Not very and as often as not in very predictable circumstances (from what is now a Marxist structuralist perspective). I would say that many monogamous cultures also recognise that people and circumstances change so that staying with someone when you our grow, each other, etc., is just dumb. So commonly, in these contexts, there are few problems with "divorce" and remarriage. In fact, a woman who has demonstrated the ability to have children would be desired (i.e., more than a virgin), not stigmatised in any way.

So, where does "our" version of monogamy tend to be most often found? First, in patrilineal societies where property, etc., passes down through the male side. Obviously, in matrilinal societies, when property is passed down through the female side (i.e., inherited from mother's brother) there is no problem because who the mother is is generally never in question while who the father is is unimportant (in fact, it is not uncommon for it to be believed that the father plays no real role in reproduction).

So, monogamy tends to be highly correlated with property being passed down through the male side because only then is it really important who the father is. But this does not eliminate polygamy. In fact, the early Christians were frequently polygamous (i.e., note that the apostle Paul said that only pastors and deacons of the church should be monogamous - have only one wife). The choice between monogamy and polygamy is very much linked to the economic system. Cross-cultural rule of thumb: where economic units (i.e., families) are more self-contained, polygamy is favoured because it allows for a concentration of wealth and resources in extended families (depending on the nature of those resources, of course). Where economic units contribute to a larger entity (i.e., the "state" by way of taxes or tribute, etc.), then monogamy is favoured, which also cuts down on wasteful competition or raiding for wives, etc.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7998
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region
Likes received:5


Postby Removed user on December 26th, 2007, 6:22 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:So, monogamy tends to be highly correlated with property being passed down through the male side because only then is it really important who the father is.


In the Odyssey, Telemachus says that though he’s been told that he is Odysseus’ son that it would be a wise child indeed who actually knew who his father was. This, of course, implies that monogamy by both men and women might not have been such a prevalent practice at the time. The fact that Penelope held title to the lands as queen and that Odysseus was only king because he was married to her further supports Forest's hypothesis, at least for this specific matrilineal ancient Greek culture.
Removed user
 


Postby Sisyphus on December 26th, 2007, 8:50 pm 

So where does this whole modern concept of monogamous romance come from? For example; Valentine's Day, clichéd romance movies, and the basic idea of "love". What's it called? "Oxytocin"?

(P.S. Metis, I posted an unrelated post in the Weird Science thread in the Fun Links area that may interest and/or disgust you.)
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby Giacomo on December 26th, 2007, 9:01 pm 

Some say it started with the Roman Emperor Constantine with the Council of Nicea.
Giacomo
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4821
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: New Jersey and Manhattan, NYC
Likes received:1


Postby Sisyphus on December 27th, 2007, 8:46 am 

Did the Council of Nicea decide what things are nice?
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby Glen on December 27th, 2007, 1:07 pm 

No, but close. They decided what things are nicea.
Glen
Banned User
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Location: A backstreet.
Likes received:1


Postby Sisyphus on December 27th, 2007, 2:10 pm 

Ah.
User avatar
Sisyphus
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Postby cantskate on December 27th, 2007, 3:06 pm 

Sisyphus wrote:Did the Council of Nicea decide what things are nice?


No, the Council of Nicea developed a creed that states what you must believe to be a Christian. It's pretty short, if I remember correctly you just have to believe in the Trinity, Jesus being the son of God, the resurrection, the basic process of salvation as outlined in the Gospels, and I believe that is it. There may be a few other lines, but they aren't any less basic than the ones I mentioned.
cantskate
Member
 
Posts: 295
Joined: 30 Oct 2007


Postby Giacomo on December 27th, 2007, 3:10 pm 

About the council of Nicea:

In 325 A. D. the Roman Emperor Constantine, faced with an empire breaking apart because of infighting between Christian and the traditional believers in the Roman Pagan State Religion. The council created a new hybrid Roman State Religion to bring the warring factions into one common worship and preserve the Empire.

They revised and created the first State sanctioned scripture, creating numerous theological constructs out of political necessity, which lack any basis in history or documented religious teaching. These included the teachings that Jesus was the son of god, that he was born to a virgin, and that he was killed and rose from the dead, and that he considered himself a savior. The Council created the first State operated "Christian" Church. They created the first paid clergy.

Those who refused to follow this belief were called heretics, from the Latin hereticus (plural heretici)which simply means "those who chose" or "choice makers". They were declared enemies of God and the State.

In both pre-and post Christ, Jewish and Christian societies were polygamous. The so-called great prophets of the old testament had dozens, in some cases hundreds of wives, concubines and slaves. Christ was born into a polygamous society. He died in a polygamous society.

But the State had still a problem. The problem was polygamy. Polygamy challenged the State.

How ?

It could not levy taxes, it could not wage war. It could not usurp property.

If you have many wives and dozens of children, then there'll always be an heir standing in line in front of the Church to inherit assets.

So, The Holy Roman Church in the 5-th Century decreed that marriage could only be between one man and one woman.

Monogamy has no theologically historical basis, it's basis is economic.
Giacomo
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4821
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: New Jersey and Manhattan, NYC
Likes received:1


Postby Removed user on December 27th, 2007, 3:53 pm 

I got a kick out of an interview with an African man I heard once. The anthropologist asked him if his culture was polygamous, to which the man replied, “Yes, I can have many wives.” When asked why he didn’t then have multiple wives the man said, “Because my wife won’t let me.”
Removed user
 


Postby Seyfried on December 27th, 2007, 6:57 pm 

Ask Kant...
Seyfried
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 27 Dec 2007


Next

Return to Social Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests