4 ms·

I do think that monogamy should be considered "ideal" in some sense (especially for raising children), but I do think we need to understand that not everyone's

I do think that monogamy should be considered "ideal" in some sense (especially for raising children), but I do think we need to understand that not everyone's upbringing, which forms their (surprise, surprise) attachment style, will allow this to be a healthy constraint. The statistics, obviously, bear out that a large number of, even happy, people cannot hack it under the constraints of monogamy. Either monogamy needs to be better defined or we need to drop it as a societal pressure/constraint on relationships. Probably a little bit of both is needed.

EliRivers 7y ago
I do think that monogamy should be considered "ideal" in some sense (especially for raising children) Naively, I'd wonder if children could be raised better by a group of adults rather than a couple.
- memling 7y ago
  aren't all children raised by groups?
- hacknat 7y ago
  Certainly a couple, by themselves, is the 2nd worst choice for raising a child other than a single parent, by themselves. Children need to be raised by lots of caring adults. However monogamy does provide a sort of back-stop safety protection against adults prioritizing their own relationships with each-other over their relationships with their children (who are naturally less interesting and invigorating relationship partners). Non-monogamous raising of children probably has its own advantages and dangers, the point is to make sure that children are always protected and nurtured to the best of their caregivers' ability. I worry about diffusing responsibility for raising children too much, at the expense of them developing a secure attachment. However, as long as all the adults in a child's life are prioritizing that child developing a "secure" attachment style, I could give a shit who is fucking who. And yes, this is very much my business, because how you raise your children dictates what kind of society my children will live in, so please raise them right.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Two adults earning incomes and a third (and maybe also a fourth) keeping house and taking care of the kids sure seems a lot better for everyone concerned from my perspective (normal 2-parent household with three young kids).
    - hacknat 7y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, but lets be wise to the dangers that can present themselves in this situation, and then lets make sure to legislate against them (seriously).
  - User23 7y ago
    This is one of the second order negative effects of low birth rates in the developed world. Low birth rates mean low numbers of aunts, uncles, cousins, and other kinfolk who have a vested genetic interest in the well-being of your child. That's something that money just can't buy, no matter how great your nanny or pre-school or whatever is. And that's assuming you haven't moved away from your family, which many of us have.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    > And yes, this is very much my business, because how you raise your children dictates what kind of society my children will live in, so please raise them right. Sure, but I'd like to see if your conjecture is actually backed up by the evidence. I too might be initially inclined to believe that monogamous partners are better for childcare, but I'm guessing that I am also epistemically biased towards that assumption, just as a product of the societal norms I've grown up with.
xwdv 7y ago
I feel it should be considered reasonable for people to have a stable main partner whom you spend most of your time with and raise a family with, while still having other partners who may only be temporary but you can pursue romantic interactions with. This is basically the idea behind the ethical non-monogamy trend we see on some dating apps. The problem is people attach too much ego to their relationships and jealously easily flares up when there is a hint that their partner may also be attracted to someone else. There are also financial motivations for catching your partner in an affair and immediately leaving them. However, the fact remains that people already have these kinds of relationships, they are just not talked about or openly accepted. It’s a bit like being a gay man 40-50 years ago. If it weren’t for society priming people to instantly dump a partner upon discovering they are a practicing non-monogamist, people might be forced to think for themselves and decide if that’s something their okay with, and I suspect many people might be.
- brians 7y ago
  > ethical non-monogamy ... > partner upon discovering they are a practicing non-monogamist ... > ethical Nah.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    I find demeaning others life choices publicly online to be anti-ethical, but what do I know. Please be nice.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      I don't think the post you're replying to is demeaning life choices. The grandparent is advocating for cheating and calling it ethical. The comment you're replying to is correctly stating that it's unethical to have an open relationship when your partner doesn't know it's open. Key quote from the grandparent: > partner upon discovering they are a practicing non-monogamist You don't "discover you're a practicing non-monogamist", that's just a euphemism for finding out you're being cheated on. You either agree to non-monogamy or you don't but the only ethical time to give someone that choice is before you've started practicing it behind their back. > I find demeaning others life choices publicly online to be anti-ethical, but what do I know. Please be nice. It's actually the grandparent that keeps demeaning people's life choices by calling monogamy "boring", "vanilla" and "on the wrong side of history".
User23 7y ago
The reason monogamy is ideal is because human beings are a tournament species[1] that's smart enough to have realized that emulating a pair-bonding species results in better societal results. Mainly because if we just followed our animal natures a huge percentage of men (far greater than now) would be shut out of the mating market. Having a large population of young males with no mating prospects hanging around is harmful to society for many reasons, the most severe being one of the charismatic winner types deciding he wants to sell them a dream and putting them to nasty work. [1] https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi674.htm https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi674.htm
- aklemm 7y ago
  Jordan, is that you?

EliRivers 7y ago

I do think that monogamy should be considered "ideal" in some sense (especially for raising children) Naively, I'd wonder if children could be raised better by a group of adults rather than a couple.

memling 7y ago
aren't all children raised by groups?
hacknat 7y ago
Certainly a couple, by themselves, is the 2nd worst choice for raising a child other than a single parent, by themselves. Children need to be raised by lots of caring adults. However monogamy does provide a sort of back-stop safety protection against adults prioritizing their own relationships with each-other over their relationships with their children (who are naturally less interesting and invigorating relationship partners). Non-monogamous raising of children probably has its own advantages and dangers, the point is to make sure that children are always protected and nurtured to the best of their caregivers' ability. I worry about diffusing responsibility for raising children too much, at the expense of them developing a secure attachment. However, as long as all the adults in a child's life are prioritizing that child developing a "secure" attachment style, I could give a shit who is fucking who. And yes, this is very much my business, because how you raise your children dictates what kind of society my children will live in, so please raise them right.
- shantly 7y ago
  Two adults earning incomes and a third (and maybe also a fourth) keeping house and taking care of the kids sure seems a lot better for everyone concerned from my perspective (normal 2-parent household with three young kids).
  - hacknat 7y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but lets be wise to the dangers that can present themselves in this situation, and then lets make sure to legislate against them (seriously).
- User23 7y ago
  This is one of the second order negative effects of low birth rates in the developed world. Low birth rates mean low numbers of aunts, uncles, cousins, and other kinfolk who have a vested genetic interest in the well-being of your child. That's something that money just can't buy, no matter how great your nanny or pre-school or whatever is. And that's assuming you haven't moved away from your family, which many of us have.
- MiroF 7y ago
  > And yes, this is very much my business, because how you raise your children dictates what kind of society my children will live in, so please raise them right. Sure, but I'd like to see if your conjecture is actually backed up by the evidence. I too might be initially inclined to believe that monogamous partners are better for childcare, but I'm guessing that I am also epistemically biased towards that assumption, just as a product of the societal norms I've grown up with.

xwdv 7y ago

I feel it should be considered reasonable for people to have a stable main partner whom you spend most of your time with and raise a family with, while still having other partners who may only be temporary but you can pursue romantic interactions with. This is basically the idea behind the ethical non-monogamy trend we see on some dating apps. The problem is people attach too much ego to their relationships and jealously easily flares up when there is a hint that their partner may also be attracted to someone else. There are also financial motivations for catching your partner in an affair and immediately leaving them. However, the fact remains that people already have these kinds of relationships, they are just not talked about or openly accepted. It’s a bit like being a gay man 40-50 years ago. If it weren’t for society priming people to instantly dump a partner upon discovering they are a practicing non-monogamist, people might be forced to think for themselves and decide if that’s something their okay with, and I suspect many people might be.

brians 7y ago
> ethical non-monogamy ... > partner upon discovering they are a practicing non-monogamist ... > ethical Nah.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  I find demeaning others life choices publicly online to be anti-ethical, but what do I know. Please be nice.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I don't think the post you're replying to is demeaning life choices. The grandparent is advocating for cheating and calling it ethical. The comment you're replying to is correctly stating that it's unethical to have an open relationship when your partner doesn't know it's open. Key quote from the grandparent: > partner upon discovering they are a practicing non-monogamist You don't "discover you're a practicing non-monogamist", that's just a euphemism for finding out you're being cheated on. You either agree to non-monogamy or you don't but the only ethical time to give someone that choice is before you've started practicing it behind their back. > I find demeaning others life choices publicly online to be anti-ethical, but what do I know. Please be nice. It's actually the grandparent that keeps demeaning people's life choices by calling monogamy "boring", "vanilla" and "on the wrong side of history".

User23 7y ago

The reason monogamy is ideal is because human beings are a tournament species[1] that's smart enough to have realized that emulating a pair-bonding species results in better societal results. Mainly because if we just followed our animal natures a huge percentage of men (far greater than now) would be shut out of the mating market. Having a large population of young males with no mating prospects hanging around is harmful to society for many reasons, the most severe being one of the charismatic winner types deciding he wants to sell them a dream and putting them to nasty work. [1] https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi674.htm https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi674.htm

aklemm 7y ago
Jordan, is that you?