Our society is enraptured by monogamy. So much so that other forms of intimate relationships never cross the minds of most people. It’s talked about in nearly every movie and nearly every song: finding one’s soul mate, getting married and being extremely jealous because another individual is stepping on their romantic territory. Even the scientific community is participating in this love affair with monogamy. Animals and genes are being observed and analyzed to discover the roots of the one and only true way to be in a relationship. Now, as you should know by now from reading my other blog posts, I am not a fan of being told I only have one option. Life is never that simple and when someone tries to claim that life is that simple, something is very wrong. So what is monogamy? Why does society love it so much? And are there other options?
Monogamy is a type of relationship in which two individuals decide to have sex/be intimate only with one another. One recurring idea that I have come across in life and while researching for this post is the idea that monogamy is pure and natural. When I typed in the word “monogamy” or the phrase “monogamy in humans” in Google Scholar I was pretty shocked by all of these articles enthusiastically supporting the naturalness of monogamy. I could not help but wonder why was it so important to find examples of monogamy in the animal kingdom? Would discovering that monogamy exists in animals and even in animals closely related to humans really prove that monogamy is the only natural way? First of all, I have never understood the argument that something that is natural is automatically good. Obviously, that is not the case. Poison, diseases and hurricanes are natural, but they certainly are not things that people tend to want more of. Secondly, there are also many instances of non-monogamy in the animal kingdom. In their article, “The Benefit and the Doubt: Why Monogamy?,” G. A. Schuiling states, “The fact that humans can be monogamic is exceptional for an Ape: of the Apes, only the gibbons are [solely] monogamic” (56). They go on to say, “Chimpanzees live in relatively large, promiscuous groups (although there is a strict hierarchy with an ‘alpha male’ at the top, who mates with the majority of females). Male gorillas, on the other hand, have a harem of several females, while orangutans are polygamic” (56-57). Schuiling argues from an evolutionary theory perspective which I tend to dislike in discussions of sexuality, but I do find it amusing that nature readily challenges the “naturalness” of monogamy.
That being said, I should explain why I tend to dislike evolutionary theory in discussions of sexuality. In evolutionary theory (and in everyday life) monogamy automatically refers to a heteronormative couple. Also monogamy is described as the pinnacle of evolution and as absolutely necessary because how else will females obtain resources in order to care for their offspring without a male present? In evolutionary theory, males are on the hunt for young fertile females to impregnate so their genes will be passed to future generations and females are on the hunt for a big, strong male who has lots of resources and who seems healthy enough to provide them with offspring (Schuiling 57). Well what about individuals who are not straight? What does evolutionary theory have to say about them? Pretty much nothing. People who are not heteronormative are seen as failures evolutionarily speaking because they will not procreate and spread their genes (which is obviously the only thing we live for), but at least, they can help care for the children of their heteronormative relatives in order to be evolutionarily useful according to the kin selection theory (this theory, by the way, is incorrect). Now, one could argue that these evolutionary theories only reference the past and obviously have no bearing in our modern world. I would disagree. These theories still influence the ideas and beliefs held by our society today. When society proclaims the naturalness of monogamy, they are also proclaiming the naturalness of heterosexuality and ‘traditional’ gender roles. This is evident in how ridiculously difficult it is for non-heterosexual people to gain equal marriage rights in this country. It is evident in the idea that in order for homosexuality to be seen as acceptable, a gene has to be discovered or examples in nature have to be found in order to prove its “naturalness” and by proxy, its goodness. It is evident in the idea that virginity (and the virginity of women, in particular) is still prized in this society. What better way to control women and their sexuality than to demonize them if they do not keep themselves ‘pure’ so they can be worthy of their future husbands who will provide them with resources? And it is evident in the idea that young (barely legal) women are the sexual ideal in this society. Obviously, one has to make sure they are fertile enough to spread a man’s genetic material.
If monogamy is the only true and natural way, then why is divorce so common and necessary? Shouldn’t it be extremely easy to stay with the first person one falls in love with for the rest of their life? But it isn’t. People break up, divorce and cheat on their partners every day. Monogamy also has this connotation of being the more moral option because no one wants to be “promiscuous”. That is just not what good people do. Christian Klesse in their article, “Polyamory and its ‘Others’: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy,” states, “The derogatory term ‘promiscuity’ implies that a person has ‘unreasonable’ numbers of sexual partners. It is frequently associated with immaturity, character-deficiency, shallowness, narcissism, egocentrism, relational incapacity, lack of responsibility, and worthlessness” (573). This reminds me of a theme I constantly bring up: Normal vs. Abnormal. When I see a phenomenon described as abnormal or “unreasonable,” I cannot help but take a critical look at the argument being made. What exactly is an unreasonable amount of partners? Is it any partners other than the person one intends on marrying (if that’s even an option)? And is everyone capable of being promiscuous? I would postulate that only women have that dubious honor. I rarely hear teenage boys being told to be careful not to become “one of those boys”. So if having an “unreasonable” amount of partners makes a person an immature and worthless individual with a character deficiency, it is no wonder why many people do not even consider anything beyond monogamy (and lie about how many partners they’ve had). Interestingly enough, Schuiling comes to the same conclusion I do, using evolutionary theory in all of its essentialism. They conclude, “Culture, with its temptations but also with its system of bans and commandments, may strongly frustrate urges deeply rooted in the human mind” (Schuiling 59). Schuiling believes that although men and women desperately want to find that one perfect mate, they also want to mate with as many people as possible in order to ensure genetic security and survival. Schuiling thinks that cultural institutions, like religion and marriage, evolved to control these other urges as much as possible. As a result, according to Schuiling, compulsory monogamy is not natural for humans and flies in the face of other urges, which has the potential for conflict.
Now that I have discussed the ‘natural origins’ of monogamy, I want to discuss social influences and pressures. One idea that seems to be very powerful in this society is the idea of the “soul mate”. A soul mate is said to be the one and only person out there for everyone. No one else in this entire world will ever be better suited. This soul mate will have everything a person ever needed and will be everything they could possibly ever want. All someone has to do is find them. And if a person is in a relationship with someone who doesn’t have everything they want, the person either must deal with it and accept that they will not be completely fulfilled in this relationship or leave and find someone else because clearly that original person wasn’t their soul mate. This could lead to serial monogamy and eventual frustration because that one person who solves all of their romantic problems seems so elusive. Can one person really fulfill all of a person’s needs? Should there only be one person in one’s life to fulfill all of their needs? Society does not have this expectation for friendships. No one is forced to have only one best friend who MUST be able to handle all of their friendship needs. If there is enough room in one’s heart to love all of our friends and family in various ways and capacities, then why can’t there be enough room for multiple romantic/sexual/intimate relationships?
This brings the discussion to the topic of polyamory and other types of non-monogamy. There are many different types of non-monogamy, but three common types are: Swinging (being in a relationship with one person, but being able to have sex with others with the consent of the partner), casual sex (sex with multiple people without building committed relationships), and polyamory (building various types of relationships with multiple people). I should state that all 3 forms of non-monogamy are valid and none of them are better than others. For the purpose of this post, I will talk a bit more about polyamory. Jin Haritaworn, Chin-ju Lin and Christian Klesse, in their article, “Poly/logue: A Critical Introduction to Polyamory,” assert that polyamory “tries to provide languages and ethical guidelines for alternative lifestyles and sexual and intimate relationships beyond the culture of ‘compulsory monogamy’ (518).” In essence, it is about options and providing people with other ways to love or relate with others if monogamy does not make them happy. Two common reactions that I receive when I bring up the topic of polyamory with someone new are “Oh no, I would get too jealous” and “Isn’t that just cheating?” The role of jealousy in a relationship is very fascinating to me. It almost seems as if jealousy is a required part of a monogamous relationship. Jealousy is a horrible emotion. It is based out of insecurity (regarding one’s self and the relationship) and the idea that another person might pose a threat to the relationship. I am sure most people would agree that it is not a pleasant experience, but for some reason, it is still seen as something that just happens, just another aspect of being in a relationship. But honestly it does not have to be this way in any relationship, monogamous or non-monogamous. A successful relationship, whether it is monogamous or non-monogamous, requires communication and honesty. Without these things, relationships are doomed to fail. Being honest to partners about one’s feelings and encouraging open discussion about them will assuage negative feelings. Jealousy is a powerful emotion, but that does not mean people should let it get the best of them. Acknowledging one’s own jealousy and then discussing it with your partner(s) is a healthier and more positive way of dealing with it without damaging the relationship in question. And as for cheating: No, being poly is not synonymous with cheating. Cheating involves hiding/lying to your partner(s). As long as you are honest with your partners and communicate with them clearly about your needs and desires then no, it is not cheating. And being poly, just like any other form of relationship, requires honesty and communication to make it work.
As I said before, for me, it is all about giving people the ability to choose what is best for them. Polyamory is not for everyone just like monogamy isn’t for everyone. People deserve options and shouldn’t be forced into one type of relationship. One type of relationship is not more “natural” or better than another. Monogamy is not mandatory and no one should feel ashamed for living a life that fulfills them.
