No, quite the contrary, monogamy is the only stable arrangement which is capable of fulfilling human nature.

*Draws the sword out...*

Progressives... :-O

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

According to whom?

Seeing 100% of the votes in the poll in the same choice, wouldn't it have made more sense to ask the question from a different POV, as in "is pologyny morally bad", which would be far more controversial subject of discussion and thus a better ground to start the discussion from?

I guess it depends upon ones morals. I like one on one. Others don't. No big deal to me one way or another since that is their agreement.

I wasn't aware that monogamy had become a burning issue. Where are you coming across this groundswell of anti-monogamy? Faithful monogamy--now, that's a problem for a lot of people. Monogamy may be honored more often in the breach than in strict adherence, but that isn't what you were asking about.

I don't think there is anything morally bad inherent in monogamy, but it is certainly possible to implement monogamy in a restrictive, oppressive, demeaning manner. This was far more true in the past than in the present in some countries, and still is in others.

Some people think that sex-defined marital roles are inherently oppressive. This would probably be especially true for those who think biology has nothing to do with destiny. Like, "Just because I'm a woman, why should anyone think it is my responsibility to take care of the children?" But sex-defined parenting doesn't have anything to do with monogamy. Whatever the official marital relationship, whether it is polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, or origami, sex roles in relationships can be an issue.

I guess it depends upon ones morals. I like one on one. Others don't. No big deal to me one way or another since that is their agreement. — Rich

This sounds like a very reasonable position to take, and neither side in this debate should try to impose its standards on the other, especially when it comes to such a deeply personal issue as this one.

I've been in a committed relationship for nineteen years now and don't feel oppressed in the least. Nor do I feel it's been a destructive force in my life. That's not to suggest that some monogamous relationships aren't all the negative things outlined above by WISDOMfromPO-MO, maybe even the majority of them.

But I'll be damned if some young student--likely short on life experience yet enamored with the latest intellectual trends they picked up from their hip college professors--is going to try to dictate how I should live my life. Yeah I know that's a bit of a caricature and a cheap shot to boot, but the level of arrogance required to assume you know what's best for everyone concerning intimate relationships is really astounding. The same goes for thoughtless partisans of monogamy, too, since both sides seem equally beholden to abstractions over the complexity of actual people and existence more generally.

I've recently distanced myself quite a bit from the extreme wing of progressivism precisely because of these types of attacks; however sincere and well-intentioned the people advocating for them may be, they ultimately turn out to be just as (if not more) dictatorial and oppressive than the typically inflexible conservative positions they seek to overthrow.

We can and should point out social injustices where we see them, we should try to persuade people to see things from a different perspective (preferably IMO one which eschews the values of consumerism for more 'elevated' ones), and do other such things to make a difference in the way people in our communities think and act. But we should also show some humility in the endeavor and not assume our position is the final word on the matter.

Anyhow, adults should have the freedom to choose their spouses and what type of relationship they're going to have. That goes equally for those who prefer an open relationship. If it works for them, that's great, but that doesn't mean their experience will match others. The opposite of course is also true.

All that said, I eagerly await any spirited attacks on monogamous relationships that may arise here. Perhaps being married I'm too personally invested in the matter to keep an open mind, but I'll try my best! I'll likely watch this unfold from the sidelines--if it even get's going--and not participate. I'm finding myself increasingly uncomfortable in these types of debates surrounding things like patriarchy, racism, and the like. Without too much exaggeration I feel like they've become somewhat akin to the old religious inquisitions: you're not only wrong if you don't agree with and adhere to the dogmatic pronouncements of the prophets of 'progress', but a sinner, guilty, an advocate of evil. Maybe the quasi-religious component is what draws a certain type of person into this sphere. I can honestly see the attraction in it.

Monogamy may be honored more often in the breach than in strict adherence, but that isn't what you were asking about. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure about that, it seems that the situation is about 50-50 for married people, with the balance leaning in favour of faithful monogamy being honored for married people. If you look at the stats here, 41% of married couples have had either one or both partners commit infidelity at least once (and infidelity includes even emotional infidelity, not only actually having sex). Also I imagine we often hear about the marriages where infidelity occurs, but not the ones where it doesn't, so there is some bias there too. Divorce rate however is above 50% for many developed places, but not all divorces occur because of infidelity.

But monogamy is indeed honored more in the breach than in adherence for non-married people unfortunately. I think this over time will translate in more breaches during marriage as well. But it depends on the people. If you're a person who lives a celibate lifestyle while you're single and don't fornicate, then why would you cheat on your partner? :s It would be so silly, since clearly you've disciplined yourself to live without any sex, so why would you suddenly be interested to cheat when you do get to have some sex with your husband/wife?

My hypothesis is that promiscuity and fornication before marriage is directly correlated with infidelity during marriage.

How is the question even a moral one? I'm not saying it is not but this is the question we should be asking, otherwise I don't see the discussion getting far.

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No it's not. That's post-modern nonsense that has few adherents outside the academic world.

If you listen closely you will hear — WISDOMfromPO-MO

One could start with Civilisation and its Discontents, but the beginning of an overt moral attack, not on monogamy as such, but on the institution of the nuclear family is probably David Cooper's The Death of the Family. Existentialism is the philosophy behind this, but one can also find precursors in Russell, Aldous Huxley and the like.

A quick look around did not find any non sensationalist trash advocates for the immorality of monogamy, but the negation of the unquestioned morality of all and only monogamous relationships is well considered in femminism - here, for example.

So questioning that monogamy is ideal has a history and a present, but claiming that it it is in principle immoral not so much.

But I may be missing something?

Existentialism is the philosophy behind this, but one can also find precursors in Russell, Aldous Huxley and the like. — unenlightened

Why do you say existentialism is the philosophy behind the moral attacks on the family?

Laing was an avowed Existentialist, and i think there was a connection with Sartre, who was also somewhat critical of the traditional family. I think Simone De Beauvoir had something to say from a feminist existentialist view. Cooper and Laing were not of one mind by any means, but then no two existentialists can ever really live on the same planet together, but although the history of critical or anti-psychiatry is complicated, it definitely owes a lot to the existentialists, and seems to be at least a major strand of thinking critical of the institution of the family.

and seems to be at least a major strand of thinking critical of the institution of the family. — unenlightened

Okay, but take Kierkegaard that FATHER of existentialism. He was very conservative with regards to the family, although he never had a family himself. I wouldn't say there's something about existentialism that implies it will be critical of the family...

Sure, it's not a necessary connection, but a contingent, historical one. Existentialism has its right wing as well as its left. I suspect Sartre would want to repudiate his FATHER.

I suspect Sartre would want to repudiate his FATHER. — unenlightened

>:O

A popular argument seems to go like this: monogamy is not natural, therefore it is bad. In other words, monogamy is an instrument used to oppress and control people by denying them what is natural: a lot of different mates.

Seems like a case of the naturalistic fallacy, maybe.

A popular argument — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Where is that popular argument made? I have referenced some arguments that have been made that relate somewhat to what you propose. But it is time to stop setting up staw-men and knocking them down again - it's boring.

About 78% of human societies are polygynous, in which some men marry more than one wife.Only 22% of societies are strictly monogamous. Almost no modern societies are polyandrous, in which one woman marries several husbands (although such societies have existed historically in the Canary Islands, the Himalayas, the Canadian Arctic, and possibly other places). Only 3% of mammal species in general are monogamous, although at least 15% of primate species are.
In historical terms, it is monogamy that is in need of explanation, not polygamy.[4]
—Janet Bennion, Women of Principle (1998)

Wikipedia

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

About 78% of human societies are polygynous, in which some men marry more than one wife.Only 22% of societies are strictly monogamous. Almost no modern societies are polyandrous, in which one woman marries several husbands (although such societies have existed historically in the Canary Islands, the Himalayas, the Canadian Arctic, and possibly other places). Only 3% of mammal species in general are monogamous, although at least 15% of primate species are.
In historical terms, it is monogamy that is in need of explanation, not polygamy.[4]
—Janet Bennion, Women of Principle (1998)
Wikipedia — Cavacava

I'm not defending or criticizing the practice of or idealization of monogamy. I'm trying to be objective here.

I believe if we are going to be objective then we can't take monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, celibacy, chastity, etc. out of their cultural contexts and say that they do or do not represent what is "natural". We don't say that 90% of historic and prehistoric cultures practiced some kind of religion and, therefore, religion is "natural".

It could be that monogamy was the only arrangement that worked in feudal and later industrial Europe. It could be that the extended family was a burden to industrial and post-industrial America and therefore the nuclear family emerged as the ideal basic family unit. It could be that in contemporary Western societies the family is irrelevant, more people are able to support their own selves--the basic economic household unit is now households of one person, therefore more people are living alone for long periods, and relationships are now simply for sex. Therefore, it could be that vilifying monogamy and its supporters misses the point. The point we should be getting could be that marriage is becoming increasingly obsolete, never mind if it is between one man and one woman, one man and twenty women, two men, two women, etc.

Why are people saying that cultural practices are not "natural" anyway? It's culture, not biology. Whether we are talking about monogamy, polygamy, agriculture, manners/etiquette, digital communication, theocracy, democracy, muskets, chemical weapons, HVAC, fire pits, etc., etc., isn't it already understood that it is not "natural"?

It sounds like we have ideologues cherry picking out-of-context ethnographic facts that support their agenda.

Almost no modern societies are polyandrous, in which one woman marries several husbands

According to this, there are "53 societies outside of the classical Himalayan and Marquesean area that permit polyandrous unions"

Is polygamy morally bad. Apparently the majority of the world does not think so. [that being said it would be interesting to find out how many actually participate in non-monogamous relationships]

So then if we are discussing Western culture whose laws, practices and beliefs trace back to the Greco-Roman culture which was primarily monogamous and generated Christianity which gave religion an official status. Christianity does not go for non-monogamous relationships. It sets the foundation for thinking that non-monogamous relationships are bad which became the predominant meme in the West. Religions expect men to lead certain lifestyles which it proscribes and non-monogamous relationships are not found in many. The 'moral' understanding of what acts it considers good and bad are correlated with natural versus unnatural as it proscribes. This understanding is slowly being spun out of the law. The Feds repealed the Edmunds Act in 1983. All fifty of US states still have laws against polygamy, but these laws are noi holding in court...if a steady mistress is allowed then why the heck not allow polygamy.

Is monogamy bad? If by that you mean being trapped in a bad relationship which one cannot escape except by divorce, which may be against one's Christian beliefs, then yes, I think a bad faith marriage is not a good way to live.

If monogamy is just a cultural feature, why is it being singled out?

Nobody asks if other features of cultures, such as working in cubicles, are morally bad.

Why are people saying that cultural practices are not "natural" anyway? It's culture, not biology. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

As for biology, as Kinsey (supposedly) put it: "The only unnatural act is one you cannot perform."

Whatever humans do--not matter how appalling--is "natural". Appalling behavior is part of our nature. We may not be appalling all the time, but most of us have, at one time or another, done things that we ourselves felt were appalling and were very embarrassed by what we did. Lots of appalling acts that people have performed are also powerfully sanctioned, and people still do them -- like murder for instance.

There are better adjectives: appalling, disgusting, nauseating, revolting, repulsive, annoying, ugly, trashy--all kinds--that better describe human behavior than "unnatural".

Hey, I'm new to the forum and I just discovered this topic. I found it really interesting to read, and I would be pleased to participate in this search for knowledge, although I do not know how this topic is. It is also important to state that I'm Brazilian, so my english is not that advanced when it comes to writing...

unenlightened brought a very important point on: this discussion is widely present in femminist movements, specially those connected to marxist theories. I've read many texts questioning compulsive monogamy as both a manipulative tool. A powerful sexist (women are usually depicted as the cheaters of the couples) and capitalist tool used by big company groups that want to maintain their moral beliefs. If you think this way, in which monogamy is injected in your head through cartoons, movies and books, and you believe in the inalienable right of freedom of thinking and acting (what Rousseau and other french philosophers of the eighteenth century used to talk about), then yes, it is morally incorrect. But if you believe that culture is a intrinsecate trait to the human being and no manifestation of it in any context is incorrect, then no.

And if you're feeling worried by this, be sure that you're not the only one. When coming to taste, I'm a hopeless romantic, who writes about his beloved ones and likes to read Keats, Wordsworth, Byron and Brazilian writers such as José de Alencar and Álvares de Azevedo. No wonder that I would love to be in a monogamic relation.
But I try to keep my mind open, and do want to talk to someone who have the same worries.

It seems to me that neither monogamy nor polygamy, not any other "gamy" is inherently good or bad as long as the participants engage of their own free will and everyone is informed and are consenting adults. There would seem to be some advantage of stable long term relationships particularly in families with children although children do fine as long as there are loving responsible adults assisting them in the process of survival and maturation.

Monogamy is natural for humans. Polygamy is artificial and therefore better in terms of the needs of merchants who sell goods and services. The confusion is connected to the extra social prosthesis that is needed to create an illusion that polygamy is natural. If you do not factor the prosthesis into account you will draw the wrong conclusion.

For example, say we ran a world wide experiment where we tell everyone to choose either monogamy or polygamy and stay that way for 10 years. We then take away all medical prosthesis connected to STD's, to simulate what natural humans would find in a natural environment. We then let nature run tis course. Then we see which of the two groups has selective advantage in terms of health and which is riddled with disease. The ancient people did not have modern prothesis and saw this experiment with their own eyes, and the leaders chose natural for the group.

In terms of children, although polygamy allows more genetic diversity in offspring, it looses in the second half which is child raising. If we also took away all social prosthesis connected to child support, beyond the parents, the result would be similar as above. Parents, who are not good with children, will nevertheless give more instinctive effort to their own biological children. Polygamy breaks that natural connection more often. Selective advantage would again go to monogamy.

Most people are fooled by the magic tricks created by the prosthesis, which props up the lower side, so both sides appear on the same level.

King Solomon of the bible had about seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. One would call that polygamy in terms of the King Solomon. However, it was monogamous for his wives and concubines. The reason it was allowed by God was King Solomon paid his own way, took care of his children and his wives remained monogamous since he was good to them.

I'm going to go with the obvious answer and say no, neither monogamy nor polygamy nor casual sex are immoral. They're about as immoral as a slice of toast or a game of KerPlunk.

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A Gallup poll from 2013 showed that 14% of Americans considered polygamy as "morally acceptable". 2x the increase from 7% in 2001. This does not mean, of course, that monogamy is increasingly viewed as "oppressive, destructive, irrational", and "other adjectives" that you admit you made up. On the contrary, it shows that 86% of Americans do not view polygamy as morally acceptable.

Monogomy works best for those who are in love and those who are ugly.

M

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I'm still waiting for the polygamists to take their case to the USA Supreme Court cause after the Obergerfell ruling it would take some convoluted legal reasoning to reject it?