Bruh, I dont think im ever getting married

Sometimes I hit up the MGTOW forum, and read stories about dudes tied up in marriage...
mean.gif


That **** is depressing.
 
 

 

 
 
 

Abstract

The goal of this paper was to conduct research that would result in an understanding of the relationship practice that yielded the least amount of psychological issues for both sexes. I located a number of peer reviewed journal articles in reference to the evolutionary and social-cultural theoretical origins of monogamy, research on alternative relationship practices such as polygamy and polyamory, and neurological influences of monogamy such as oxytocin and vasopressin. My research suggests that monogamy is the relationship practice that would be most beneficial to both sexes. I also propose a longitudinal study that would further support my claims, as well as give an idea of what and when psychological issues would occur while engaged in alternative relationship practices.
 
 

The concept of monogamy has always been a topic of interest to me. In the United States, monogamous relationships have become the social norm. It has also become a nation where unhappy marriages, infidelity, and divorce have become commonplace. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2013), 20 percent of all marriages end in divorce within five years. That number continues to rise each year thereafter, reaching over 50 percent by year twenty. The fallout of these unhappy unions includes the financial and property disputes between the couple, the adjustment issues a child who is the product of the relationship may face after a separation, and the emotional and psychological problems that may develop by everyone involved. The combination of those consequences coupled with the amount of people who get divorced each year ends up putting a major strain on society as a whole.

            The goal of this paper is to gain a clear understanding of monogamy. I want to thoroughly examine its origins, history, and modern day challenges. I also want to get an idea of the alternative relationship practices people engage in to determine if there is one that is the most beneficial to all, and if there is a single relationship practice that leads to having the most psychological issues. Are our modern day issues with monogamy due to it being the wrong relationship practice… or are we are not educated enough on monogamy and other relationship practices to really understand why monogamy is the most beneficial for all parties involved? My research will attempt to answer these questions.

            In attempt to answer these questions, we first have to attempt to understand monogamy. A major challenge in understanding monogamy is determining how monogamy came to be. There are two main theories that try to draw that conclusion, which are the evolutionary and social-cultural perspectives. Much of this paper will consist of identifying and examining the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint. I will also examine factors like gender that may influence monogamy, and research alternate viewpoints to monogamy such as polyamory and polygamy. Once this information is collected and synthesized, it will help me develop a stance, answer questions, and potentially present new ideas for future research.

Monogamy

            Monogamy has been a difficult word to define and conceptualize due to the various interpretations of the practice. Variations of the term include serial monogamy, which is when a person marries one spouse, they either divorce or die, and then the surviving partner marries a new spouse (Mulder, 2009). Sexual monogamy is characterized as a relationship between two persons who are sexually exclusive with each other and have no outside sexual partners (Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011). For this specific paper I am going to use the definition of social monogamy, which is characterized as a relationship between two people who live together, are each other’s exclusive sexual partners, and cooperate in acquiring basic needs such as food, clothes, and shelter (Dobson, Way, & Baudoinc, 2010). I chose that definition because it includes all of the characteristics that each of the other interpretations share, and is the basis of all of the research explored.

Evolutionary Psychology

            In order to understand the Evolutionary Perspective of monogamy, we must first understand evolutionary psychology. It is defined as the study of the psychological adaptations of humans to the changing physical and social environment, especially of changes in brain structure, cognitive mechanisms, and behavioral differences among individuals (Buss 1995). Just as evolutionary biologists believe that humans evolve physically to fight off diseases and adapt to nature, evolutionary psychologists believe that human cognition evolves to properly adapt to mental challenges we continuously face.

The Evolutionary Perspective         

While all humans are all very similar, male and female sex differences are the primary component that separates the species. When we think about sex differences, we usually think about the physical characteristics that separate men from women. For example, women have menstrual cycles and have the responsibility of giving birth, two major physical challenges that men do not have to endure. The physical differences between men and women present a completely different set of challenges, which take two different mental strategies to overcome (Buss, 1995). Over time those two mental strategies become two standard cognitive processes separated by gender, possibly leading to two different viewpoints from men and women on similar topics. Applying these concepts to monogamy could lead to two different gendered perspectives that evolved due to the different mind states that were needed to adapt to those roles.  

             A key component believed to contribute to the evolution of cognitive processes involving partner selection is discussed in the Sexual Selection Theory, which claims that men and women have different sexual selection strategies (Buss & Schmitt 1993). Buss and Schmitt compiled a list of proposed psychological issues that men and women both historically faced when choosing a partner. For men, the potential psychological issues with short term sexual strategies included: problem of partner number, problem identifying when women are sexually accessible, problem of minimizing cost, risk, and commitment, and problems with fertility. The potential psychological issues with men implementing long term sexual strategies included problems with paternity confidence, problem of reproductive value, problem of commitment, problem of good parenting skills, and problem of gene quality. For women, the list of potential psychological issues with a short term sexual strategy included: problem of immediate resource extraction, problem of evaluating short term mates as possible long term mates, problem of gene quality, problem of mate switching. The potential psychological issues with women implementing long term sexual strategies included the problem of identifying men who are willing to invest, problem with physical protection, problem with commitment, problem of good parenting skills, and problem of gene quality.

The proposed differing psychological needs of women was reflected in the fact that they would be the primary caretakers of any offspring that resulted from the relationship. The immediate and long term need for resources, protection, and commitment suggests that women would not only be more selective when choosing a mate, but would also implement a sexual selection strategy that would result in landing a long term mate (Buss & Schmitt 1993). The proposed psychological needs of men do not warrant the same long term needs as women, thereby decreasing the need for a man to implement a long term sexual selection strategy when choosing a partner. This led Buss and Schmitt to come up with a hypothesis which stated that the historical psychological issues that men encountered caused them to change their mental approach to relationships, leading to the evolution of short term mating strategies being predominately practiced by the males of the species. On the contrary, the historical psychological issues that women encountered caused them to change their mental approach to relationships, leading to the evolution of long term mating strategies being predominately practiced by the female species. After creating this hypothesis, Buss and Schmitt conducted a series of experiments used to determine if those hypothesis were consistent with human behavior of today.  

Short Term Sexual Strategies         

The first experiment in the Buss and Schmitt (1993) study was a set of surveys used to assess each sexes desire to engage behaviors that were consistent with short term relationship practices. Buss and Schmitt used 148 college students (75 men and 73 women) as their participants. Specific components of the survey confirmed that men desired more sexual partners than women over a lifespan, at a rate of 18 to 5. The length of time knowing a perspective partner prior to being willing to have sex with them was also assessed, revealing that men would have sex with a woman after knowing them for a shorter amount of time than a woman would with a man. The standards that both men and women had in reference to personal characteristics including intelligence, honesty, and devotion was also measured, and the results indicated that men had lower standards than their female counterparts. The last component attempted to identify which sex had the least amount of characteristics they found undesirable in a potential mate, with men resulting in the sex with the lowest tolerance.

            Another survey was administered to the group, which was used to test the hypothesis that stated that the preference for short term relationships in males will solve the issue of identifying which women are sexually accessible. The first component of this portion of the study assessed the value of a cue that implied the desire to have immediate sex by a potential partner. The results revealed that these cues are much more valued by men than women. The next component assessed negative cues that implied a potential partner did not want to have sex. These cues were disliked much more by men than women, again confirming that men evolved to seek short term sexual strategies in hopes of identifying women who are sexually accessible.

The next part of the study was a survey used to test the hypothesis which stated that the evolved preference of short term mates for men will result in a lack of interest in women who seek potential commitment and investment. In order to come to this conclusion, the researchers assessed the desirability of cues that implied that the partner in a relationship wanted a commitment. These cues were seen as more undesirable to men than to women, thereby confirming the initial hypothesis. 

            The next component of the study was a survey used to test the hypothesis which stated that the evolved desire for short term mating in men will help identify which women are fertile. The experimenters believed that men would prefer a more attractive partner than women, since attractiveness tended to equate to a more fertile partner. They also believed that men would prefer unattractive women less as mating partners. The data from the survey again confirmed the initial hypothesis, revealing that men desired more attractive partners than women.

Long Term Sexual Strategies

            The next part of the study concentrated on the psychological issues that each sex would possibly face when considering long term sexual strategies. The first survey administered tested if men would be more jealous of their partner engaging in physical infidelity than emotional infidelity, and that women would be more jealous if their partner engaged in emotional infidelity rather than physical infidelity. The thinking was that physical infidelity would have caused issues with paternity confidence in ancient man, discouraging them from engaging in a long term sexual selection strategy. This would also show that women were more concerned about the loss of investment and commitment from a man, consistent with them implementing a long term sexual strategy. The results of the survey showed that men cared more about sexual infidelity and women cared more about emotional fidelity, confirming the hypothesis.

            Also in reference to paternity confidence, another survey was provided to assess what qualities were most desirable for men in a long term mate, and what characteristics would be least liked when looking for a long term mate. The results of these surveys concluded that faithfulness and sexual loyalty were the most desired characteristics. If a man had a woman with those qualities, he would be confident that any offspring she had were his. The results of the survey determined that promiscuity and sexual experience were the least desired characteristics of a man in a potential long term mate. If a man had a women with those qualities paternal confidence would be very low, discouraging him from implementing a long term mating strategy.

            The next portion of the study was conducted to test two hypotheses. The first was that women hypothesis that men will value physical attractiveness and relative youth in a mate more than women when seeking a long term mating strategy. This assumption was based on that fact that health and age are important cues to a women’s reproductive value. The results confirmed the hypothesis, showing that men value physical attractiveness and relative youth in a mate more than women when pursuing a long term sexual strategy.

            The next portion of the experiment was conducted to test two hypothesizes. The first was that women will place a higher value on cues that imply a man is willing to expend resources on them immediately when attempting to use a short term mating strategy. The second was that women will have greater dissatisfaction of cues that imply a man is not willing to expend resources immediately when attempting to use a short term mating strategy. The results of the survey confirmed each hypothesis. Women liked when they thought a man was willing to spend money on them immediately, and disliked when they thought a man would not.  These results confirmed that women are evaluating potential long term partners is short term contexts.

            The next survey was used to confirm the hypothesis that while engaged in a perceived short term relationship, women would have stronger disdain for characteristics in their partner that were seen as detrimental to a possible long term relationship than men. The results of this study confirmed the hypothesis, with women placing a greater value on characteristics seen as detrimental in a potential long term mate, again confirming that women are evaluating potential long term partners is short term contexts

            The next survey was conducted to confirm the hypothesis that while engaged in a perceived short term relationship, women more than men would have feelings opposing promiscuity, because that characteristic would make that make less likely to commit to a long term relationship. The results of this study confirmed the hypothesis, with women being more opposed to a promiscuous short term mate than men in this particular situation. They also again confirm that women are evaluating potential long term partners is short term contexts.

            The next survey was used to test the hypothesis that women will value physical size and strength more in a short term mate than a long term mate. A man’s physical size was seen as an immediate necessity due to a woman’s immediate need for physical protection.  The results of the study confirmed the hypothesis, with women placing a much greater value on physical size and strength than men. These results again confirm that women are evaluating potential long term partners is short term contexts.

The next survey was used to test the hypothesis that women will value positive characteristics that show the potential of a man to amass resources, such as ambition, education, and current income when seeking a long-term mate. If a man was showed signs of being able to take care of a woman in a long term relationship, they would be more attractive. The results of the survey supported the hypothesis, that women valued earning potential more than men when evaluating a prospective long term mate.

            The results of this research on modern day humans provide evidence supporting the theory proposed by evolutionary theorists, which stated that it was the different sex specific reproductive needs that ancient men and women encountered that caused their cognitive processes to change, leading to the evolution of different sexual selection strategies. Since men and women have different viewpoints on sexual selection, the idea of being monogamous provides different challenges for each sex. Buss and Schmitt propose that from the viewpoint of males it is more beneficial to engage in a short term sexual selection strategy, and not as necessary to be monogamous. They also propose from the viewpoint of females it is more of a necessity to engage in a long term sexual selection strategy, and much more beneficial to be monogamous. This was a landmark study in the field of evolutionary psychology, which really shaped the way we look at sexual selection.

Alternative Evolutionary Perspective

Once a species evolves to become monogamous they rarely regress back into a non-monogamous state (Opie, Atkinson & Shultz, 2012). Since we share 98.4 percent of our DNA with primates (Hawkins, 1998) it is important to understand the factors that lead them to becoming monogamous as well. 

Opie, Atkinson, Dunbar, and Schulz (2013) proposed that there were three major factors that were responsible for the development of monogamy in primates. Those factors were parental care, mate guarding, and infanticide, which are all factors that are influenced by an individual’s culture. The thinking behind the hypotheses was that the more demanding the environment, the more fidelity and multiple parental investment will increase, leading to more couples who engage in monogamous relationships (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). They gathered ancestral trait data from 230 primate species in an attempt to discover a correlation between needs and behaviors that would support there hypotheses. While the data did establish parental care and mate guarding as two factors that contributed to the evolution of monogamy in primates, the strongest case was made for the prevention of infanticide. If an infant had both of their parents during the earliest stages of development it will shorten the lactation period, which is the amount of time the child would need to be fed by their mother. In humans, the lactation period would be the period where the mother breastfed the infant. Trait data from the study confirmed that if both parents care for a newborn from birth the length of the lactation period would decrease, thereby increasing an infant’s chance of survival. They will become stronger and healthier at a faster rate and have their father for protection, which are major factors that will greatly reduce infanticide.  The researchers suggest that these same concepts would apply to humans. The goal of ancient humans was to survive and reproduce, so protecting their offspring became an important factor that ensured the passing on of their genes. 

Another study conducted by Van Schaik and Dunbar (1990) hypothesized that there were four explanations for the evolution of monogamy in larger primates. Their study focused on the gibbon species. The first hypothesis was that females were over-dispersed, claiming that males did not have the ability to protect or have the option to reproduce with multiple females within the realm that they roamed. Once a male found a fertile female, to her he would remain monogamous. The second hypothesis was that reducing the risk of predators would be beneficial to both sexes, leading to the evolution of monogamy. Females would benefit by gaining protection from the male, and males would benefit by protecting the female so she can concentrate on eating, thereby making her more fertile and more of a reproductive value. The third hypothesis overlaps with the second in that it claims that the defense of an exclusive resource would lead to both sexes becoming monogamous. This relationship would benefit both male and female gibbons, because a male would be able to exclusively exploit the reproductive value of a healthy female, and the female could concentrate on eating and being healthy without having to worry about protection. The fourth hypothesis was that monogamy evolved in larger primates to guard against infanticide. A male and female staying together would increase the survival rate of their young as well as the survival rate of their species.

The results of this study conclude that a male gibbon would have access to and be able to care for multiple women within its realm, ruling out hypothesis one as the main reason for the evolution of monogamy. It also concluded that the female gibbon is self-sufficient and capable of protecting herself from predators, effectively ruling out hypotheses two and three. Now even though the female gibbon is able to protect herself, it has been shown that she is unable to protect herself and her young simultaneously. Evidence obtained by the researchers found support that women would lose 38-64% of their reproductive output to infanticide if they were not monogamous, putting extreme pressure on them to secure a single mate (Van Schaik and Dunbar, 1990). These results were corroborated by a study conducted by Borries, Savini, and Koenig (2011) which concluded that 83.3% of all infant losses in the gibbon species were due to infanticide. As a male whose goal it is to ensure the reproduction and carrying forth of his genes, it is equally beneficial to be monogamous and to be there to protect his offspring. The results of this study conclude that infanticide is the main factor in monogamy within the gibbon species.

Social Cultural Perspective

            The social cultural perspective focuses on the cultural contexts that influence behavior and individual development (Mesoudi, 2009).  Different cultures provide different psychological challenges, which lead to the adaptation of different beliefs, skills, and behaviors.  Things like laws, safety, religion, geographical location, weather, and access to resources are all vital characteristics that influence and determine behavior.

            Social Cultural theorists believe monogamy came to be in two different ways, which are ecologically imposed monogamy and socially imposed monogamy (Alexander 1987). Ecologically imposed monogamy is when the conditions of the environment prevent men from attempting to provide for more than one offspring and more than one wife (Alexander 1987). Socially imposed monogamy is when laws are specifically put in place to stop polygamy and encourage monogamy (Alexander 1987).

Most societies throughout human history have been patriarchal (Dickerson 2013). Men have generally been in control of resources, laws, and women. The most common relationship practice in these societies has been polygamy, since men in positions of power sought to have more than one woman (Al-Krenawi, Graham, Ben-Shimol-Jacobsen 2006). Most women did not have the ability to acquire resources for themselves and simultaneously protect their young.  The resource distribution in these societies was very unequal, with the men in power having a disproportionate amount of everything. With all of these things considered, it was advantageous for a woman to be in a polygamous marriage, even if they had to share their husband.

            Things changed with the advent of democracy (Kanazawa and Still, 1999). In order to gain the support of the people in a democratic nation, men in power gave up some of their wives to poor men in exchange for political support (Fortunato 2011)  When the power gap between the men in power and the common man became more balanced, so did the allocation of resources. For a woman, this made partaking in a polygamous relationship less advantageous and even counterproductive, due to the fact that most men had a similar amount of resources. To gain even more political support, the elite socially imposed monogamy by making it law (Dow & Eff 2013). The political map supports the theory that the advent of democracy caused the onset of monogamy. Most countries who do not practice monogamy, also do not practice democracy. In contrast, most countries who practice monogamy also practice democracy (Kanazawa and Still, 1999).

Pair Bonding

With the advancement of modern technology, new ways to understand and research behavior are now able to be conducted. In reference to relationships and attraction, we are able to study the behavior of the brain when an individual is encountered with certain stimuli. While we only have limited knowledge of the brain, we do know that the neurotransmitter dopamine is released into the brain when a person is given a reward (Berridge, 2007).  In reference to monogamy, neuroscience has been noticing the release of oxytocin in women and vasopressin and men when two individuals in a relationship encounter each other. These two hormones trigger the release of dopamine, which makes one individual look at the other individual in the relationship as a reward (Scheele, Striepens, Güntürkün, Deutschländer, Maier, Kendrick, & Hurlemann, 2012). A pair bond, which is an extreme closeness and affection two people have towards each other (Young & Wang, 2004), is formed once these hormones are released by each person in response to a touch, kiss, or even sexual intercourse. The more they are released, the more the two people want to be together (Berridge, 2007).

Just as the evolutionary perspective theorists used gibbons to test their theories, biologists and psychologists use prairie voles to study the effects of these hormones on the species. Prairie voles are part of the 3-5% percent of primate species that are monogamous (Insel & Hulihan, 1995). A study was conducted by Insel & Hulihan, (1995) where they injected oxytocin into monogamous female prairie voles and as well as montane female voles, a non-monogamous species. Experimenters wanted to see the effect oxytocin had on mate preference.

The first part of the experiment included injecting oxytocin into a female, and placing her with a male that she had already mated with and with another male that she had not been sexually active with. She was free to roam around the cage, and spend as much time as she like with either male. The results showed that the female preferred the partner that she already mated with rather than the other male that she did not know. The same procedure was also then done with a montane female vole. After being injected with the same amount of oxytocin and given the same amount of time to spend time with a previous mate and a new partner, the results showed no considerable difference of time spent between the two males.

Another study by was conducted by Cho, DeVries, Williams & Carter, (1999) to test the effects of vasopressin on monogamous male prairie voles. Prairie vole couples were placed together 21 days after birth, and kept there until they were placed in experimental groups within 60-90 days. A male group was injected with vasopressin, and put into a container with the partner they mated with as well as a random partner. They did this multiple times with multiple groups. The males spent twice as more time with the female they mated with than the other female.

They had another male group who did not get a vasopressin injection placed in a cage with two females, one he mated with and one he did not. They again did this multiple times with multiple groups. While the males who was not injected did spend more time with the one he previously mated with, it was not to the extent that the ones who were injected with vasopressin did.

Scheele, Striepens, Güntürkün, Deutschländer, Maier, Kendrick, & Hurlemann, (2012) conducted a study on human subjects to determine if oxytocin had an effect on how men in a monogamous relationship reacted to other attractive females. The study included a total of 57 males, 30 who were in monogamous relationships and 27 who were single. Each subject was administered oxytocin or a placebo, then asked to rate the distance they became uncomfortable at when facing an attractive female. The results of the study showed that men in monogamous relationships felt uncomfortable at a greater distance than men who were single. Men who were in monogamous relationships and given oxytocin felt uncomfortable at the greatest distance of all. 

These results suggest that oxytocin and vasopressin are potential factors that influence pair bonding, which ultimately has an impact on monogamy. One thing to be noted is that the mating process of prairie voles takes about 24-48 hours, which being such a long time could strengthen the possibility of a pair bond (Cho et al 1999).  Also, oxytocin is released during childbirth, causing a pair bond with mother and child (Skrundz, Bolten, Nast, Hellhammer, & Meinlschmidt, 2011). Since we are in the infancy in the study of the brain we cannot draw any strong conclusions in reference to these hormones, but I felt this information was important and worth noting in reference to monogamy. Further research may answer some questions, and cause us to have more definitive information on how certain components of the brain effect our feelings toward others. 

Alternatives to monogamy

The concept of polyamory, which is defined as the participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships (Klesse, 2006), has become an increasingly recognized way of carrying out relationships. Even though these types of arrangements have been ongoing since the beginning of humankind, the term itself was not established until 1994. Considering its increased practice in main stream society, there has been a lot of new research on this controversial topic.

Elisabeth Sheff (2004) conducted a series of interviews spanning from 1996-2003, in which she had in-depth conversations with women who openly practiced polyamory. Her motivation behind the study was really an attempt to answers questions she had about her own situation, due to the fact that her then sexual partner proposed the idea of partaking in a polyamorous relationship. Sheff’s initial reaction led her to incur feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem, but she kept an open mind after recognizing that cultural conditioning could be the cause of her objecting to the idea.  

Her data included information drawn from interviews conducted on 20 women and 20 men, as well as testimony from various people during small local polyamory meetings, national polyamory conferences, and every type of polyamory function in between. Her sample consisted of male and female caucasians, between 30-50 years of age, with college educations and income levels placing them at mid to high socioeconomic status.

While Sheff did not want to make any broad generalizations with the results of her study, but she was able to identify women from this demographic who practiced polyamory and exhibited a similar set of traits. These women recognize the double standard that exists in society, which glorifies males who have multiple partners while demeaning women who do the same. Most polyamorous women felt a great sense of liberation and empowerment by challenging their traditional roles in relationships, which also gave them the confidence to challenge their traditional roles in society as a whole. They also developed a sense of unity amongst other women, feeling that they came together to combat the stigma that was associated with their practices.

While most women in this study reported positive experiences while participating in polyamory, there were others who identified challenges. Some women were told by their companion that they were the preferred physical partner, and that another woman was the preferred emotional partner. This led to jealousy and self-esteem issues among the women, because they felt that they couldn’t single handedly satisfy all of the needs of a man by themselves. Women also had many more options than men, at times putting a strain on the original relationship. Tension was also shown to rise as the relationship became more serious and meaningful to one of the parties involved. Sheff also acknowledged the fact that the demographic of this study was in a better position to challenge the norms of society, due to the participant’s economic stability and social class standing.

Aguilar (2012) conducted a study which consisted of interviewing and observing two egalitarian communal groups who frequently participated in the practice of polyamory. The focus of these groups was not sex, but rather the freedom to express oneself freely about any and everything. These groups consisted of mostly caucasian heterosexual men and women who were under the age of thirty years old, came from favorable socioeconomic situations, and who were familiar with the social norms and acceptable sexual practices of mainstream Western society. Monogamous couples joined the group together, as well as individuals. These communities encouraged no particular sexual practice, and no sexual practice was looked down upon. They were isolated from the rest of society to protect themselves from the stigma associated with engaging in non-traditional behaviors. Feminist ideology, which is the idea that men and women are equal, was also at the core of these communities due to it being highly regarded and heavily encouraged. No statistics were used in this study, just general assertions made after analyzing all of the components of the group.

The results of the study showed that a lot of the newer members were hesitant to engage in the practice of polyamory, due to both the fear of jealousy and the guilt of going against the moral code that had been embedded in them. Most members who were there for a year or more were much more accepting of polyamory, describing it as more of a behavioral practice than a part of their identity. People who were in favor of polyamory claimed monogamous relationships led to too much of an emotional dependency on another, which increased the propensity of an individual to have self-esteem issues during tough times in a relationship. Many of the participants, especially women, described being polyamorous as empowering. They considered polyamory a “feminist thing,” and a way to use their sexual freedom as a way of opposing patriarchal practices and displaying their power.

While polyamory was accepted and practiced frequently within these communities, it did not occur without any issues. There were frequent problems with jealousy and emotional instability as a result of conflicting ideals while engaged in these relationships. There were situations where one person wanted to spend time with a partner, but they couldn’t due to the fact their partner was spending time with someone else. There were also situations where couples were initially engaged in polyamorous relationships, then one of the partners wanted to transition into a monogamous relationship. This usually led to anger, confusion, and insecurity among one or more of the parties involved. In many instances the initial excitement of engaging in multiple relationships faded, and gave way to a myriad of various types of problems.

Aguilar also noted that many people who engaged in polyamory while in the community tended to engage in more traditional relationships once they left. She understood that could be due to being re-integrated into a society that considered monogamy as the social standard, but she also realized that this could be due to the maturing of the relatively young demographic of the community. In this sense polyamory was seen only as a phase and not a long term relationship practice. One conclusion she was able to make is that one’s environment and cultural setting definitely has an impact on sexual behavior.

Another alternative to monogamy is the practice of polygamy, which is the when a person has more than one spouse at a time (Al-Krenawi, Graham, and Al Gharaibeh 2009). The term polygyny is used to describe a relationship where a man is married to more than one woman at a time, but those women are only in a relationship with him. The term polyandry is used when a woman has multiple husbands, but each man she is married to is only in a relationship with her. Polygamy is practiced predominantly in Middle Eastern and African cultures where the resource gap between rich and poor men is still high, and the feelings toward women are still low. These are also cultures who do not engage in the practice in the governmental practice of democracy, which is something that was noted in the research on the socio-cultural perspective.

Researchers (Al-Krenawi et al 2009) conducted a study with the purpose of comparing the happiness of women in polygynous relationships with women in monogamous relationships. All of the women in this study who were in the polygynous relationships were considered the “senior,” which meant that they were their husband’s first and primary spouse. The polygynous relationships studied were also all three party relationships, meaning that the men only had a maximum of two wives.

The study consisted of 199 women, 93 who were in polygynous marriages and 106 who were in monogamous marriages. Each woman was administered a questionnaire accessing their level of satisfaction in overall family functioning, which included subcategories of emotional involvement, communication, roles in the family, and general functioning among other things. They were also issued questionnaires used to assess marital satisfaction, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and physical symptoms they developed as a result of the relationship.

After assessing the data, the results of the study indicated that women who were in monogamous relationships were happier with their marriages and with their lives in general. Women in polygynous relationships experienced greater levels of depression, lower self-esteem, and more overall mental health issues. Similar conclusions to this study were reached in other studies by Al-Krenawi and Graham (2006), Shepard (2013), and Ozkan, Altindag, Oto, & Sentunali (2006). This implies that monogamous relationships have less psychological consequences that polygamous relationships.

While those studies focus on women, it is important we also analyze the mental state of men in polygamous relationships. When talking about men and polygamy, the discussion is usually in reference to the benefits that the man may receive rather than about potential issues that may arise. (Al-Krenawi, Slonim-Nevo, and Graham 2006) conducted a study that attempted to compare various levels of satisfaction between men in polygynous relationships and men in monogamous relationships.

The study included 156 polygynous men and 159 monogamous men from Negev, Israel. Each participant was administered multiple questionnaires used to assess mental health components including depression, anxiety, and somatization. Other questionnaires measured family functioning, marital satisfaction, and father-child relationships.

After assessing the data, the results of the study indicated that polygynous men suffered more psychological and marital issues than men in monogamous relationships. Polygynous men had higher rates of depression, more anxiety, and higher levels of somatization. They also encountered more issues with family functioning, had less marital satisfaction, and weaker father child relationships.

The cultures who practice polygamy are some of the oldest cultures in the world. They seemingly continue to practice polygamy due to tradition, rather than it being the most beneficial relationship practice of the collective population. It is also important to note that women from these cultures do not have the same rights and freedoms as women from other societies, and that plays a major part in them continuing to engage in these situations.

Conclusion

After analyzing and digesting the research in reference to the prospective origins, alternatives, and psychological consequences of being monogamous, I was able to come to a few personal conclusions.

I believe that the evolutionary perspective does the best job of explaining how ancient men and women had different psychological needs, which ultimately led to the development of two different sexual selection strategies between the genders. Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) thorough research enabled them to understand the lifestyle of ancient man, which was key in developing accurate hypotheses about what each gender needed. They showed how those ancient needs could still apply to modern day situations, and did a great job of conducting experiments that let us know if the differences of needs between genders still exist. When taking these things into consideration, I understand why monogamy presented a different set of challenges between each gender. It made sense that ancient man were was less likely to be monogamous, due to their main goal being spreading his seed to ensure the reproduction of his species. It also made sense that women were more likely to be monogamous, due to their main goal being the need to be protected, and to have a male companion who would be capable of providing resources for her and her offspring.

But as we know with evolution, things are constantly changing. Even though thousands of years of having to live a certain way has changed the cognitive mechanisms of men and women, present day challenges do not warrant the same needs. Evolution takes a long time to occur, but I believe we are in the middle of it. The advancement of society has changed the psychological needs of men and women, making them much more aligned between the genders. Men seeking long term commitments no longer need to worry about paternal confidence and investing in a child that isn’t his with the advent of DNA testing. Medical advancements have also reduced a man’s need to focus on problems with female reproductive value and gene quality. Women seeking long term commitments no longer need to worry about protection, since we now live in a society where safety is a key component of the infrastructure. Women also don’t have to worry about men acquiring resources for them since they are able to work and acquire resources for themselves. If we subtract each of those things from the initial proposed psychological challenges between the genders, that leaves the problem of commitment and the problem of good parenting skills as the main psychological challenges between men and women when seeking a long term commitment.

When thinking about how and in what way to commit to a relationship, it is important to understand the different types of relationship practices that people engage in. That is why it important to understand the psychological circumstances that come with engaging in polyamory, the components of polygamy, and other alternatives to monogamy.

When analyzing polyamory, one of the consistent themes seemed to be the sense of empowerment one felt while engaged in the practice. This was especially true for women. This led me to think about how human rights and gender equality has become a focal point of our society. As a world that is continuing to evolve, women are becoming increasingly empowered by furthering their educations, careers, and even within their relationships. As this evolution continues, eventually they will no longer feel the need to be empowered by practicing a non-traditional relationship practice like polyamory. The research also showed this to be a relationship practice that had short term benefits, eventually giving way to jealousy, confusion, and emotional issues to one or more parties involved. Overall, the lasting effects of engaging in a polyamory seemed to be much more detrimental than the perceived initial benefits of the practice.

When analyzing polygamy, there were a few re-occurring themes that were present. Comparative studies with men who practiced monogamy showed that men who were polygamous often suffered from stronger levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (Al-Krenawi, et al 2006). The relationship satisfaction with their spouse and children was also much lower than their monogamous counterparts (Shepard 2013). Compared to women who were in monogamous relationships, women who engaged in polygamy showed lower rates of self-esteem and higher rates of depression (Ozkan et al 2006).The data in reference to polygamy has led me to conclude that it is not a relationship practice that provides emotional stability and sustained happiness for all parties involved.

As opposed to polyamory and polygamy, partaking in monogamy does not have nearly as many negative psychological consequences. The research showed that people who are in monogamous relationships have higher self-esteem, less stress, and higher relationship satisfaction (Al-Krenawi, Graham, and Al Gharaibeh, 2009) Families stay together, parent-child relationships become stronger, and mental health issues decline among everyone involved.

 

 

 

 
Really long spoiler, but worth the read.

I cut out the part of my paper which required me to propose a longitudinal study. Included here is a pretty much a summation of my research on monogamy.
 
One relevant detail I left out is I plan to have my daughter three full days a week, which is considered shared custody. I actually will pay up to $200 more a month for spousal support in this arrangement if my ex doesn't have a job compared to if I completely cut off ties. If she gets a full-time minimum wage job, I'm looking at $900-$1,350 spousal (tax deductible) and $570 child support (not tax deductible). I saw a lawyer and he told me I should argue that she is capable, seeking employment and should make $15/hr. He also suggested I should concede paying her spousal for five years (child support continues). All of this requires help from my ex, which I doubt I will get.

Ex team raw member - stay protected brothers! My best friend keeps nutting in his girl because she is on birth control, he's headed to law school next year smh.

keeL252 said:
damn playa


hate to ask this but looking back didnt you see the signs before you tied the knot?
Click to expand...

I most definitely did, I was just in a bit of denial/blinded by love and wanted to do the right thing for my kid. I saw mostly the good, she had qualities that I had never found in a girl before. I could also relate her a lot to my mom, but my mom wasn't lazy or dismissive/disrespectful to her husband (found that out later).

Funny enough, one of my mom's best friends (knew her since I was 3) met her one time and HATED her, thought she was way beneath me. She spent the next year trying to convince my mom that she needed to "force" me to break things off. As my mom warmed up to my ex, it actually ended their friendship. Last year my mom showed me a long e-mail bashing my ex and imploring her to try to end things the night before our wedding! She actually still attended and that was the last time I ever saw her.

combo gd said:
Ouch. One of the reasons I got a vasectomy. My youngest is 9, and I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Splashing in eeeeerything now without giving one damb
Click to expand...

I'm considering the same thing, but it's a big step.
 
Smedroc said:
That **** is dark man... :smh:

So would you still have to pay spousal support if you never had kids??
Click to expand...

Not sure, but I would think not. The reason it is so much is to even the living situations out for my daughter. It seems somewhat reasonable in theory, but the amount is too much for too long and my ex has the potential to live very comfortably while I struggle to get by.
 
combo gd said:
Ouch. One of the reasons I got a vasectomy. My youngest is 9, and I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Splashing in eeeeerything now without giving one damb
Click to expand...
I'm considering it since I have 3 kids already but real talk the idea of being cut is scary
 
millenial said:
combo gd said:
Ouch. One of the reasons I got a vasectomy. My youngest is 9, and I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.


Splashing in eeeeerything now without giving one damb
Click to expand...

I'm considering it since I have 3 kids already but real talk the idea of being cut is scary
Click to expand...

I'm telling you, it has been one of the best decisions I have ever made. The procedure itself takes about 20 minutes, and the recovery time is a week. You have to ejacualte about 15-20 times after to remove all of the built up sperm in your urine stream or whatever, then give a sample to your doctor. My doctor was real cool. Once my sperm count was at zero, he told me to have fun!

There is nothing like that feeling of not having to worry about pre-nut, pulling out on time, or a baby. I have been going absolutely HAM.
 
H
combo gd said:
millenial said:
combo gd said:
Ouch. One of the reasons I got a vasectomy. My youngest is 9, and I am starting to see the light at the end of tl.


Splashing in eeeeerything now without giving one damb
Click to expand...

I'm considering it since I have 3 kids already but real talk the idea of being cut is scary
Click to expand...

I'm telling you, it has been one of the best decisions I have ever made. The procedure itself takes about 20 minutes, and the recovery time is a week. You have to ejacualte about 15-20 times after to remove all of the built up sperm in your urine stream or whatever, then give a sample to your doctor. My doctor was real cool. Once my sperm count was at zero, he told me to have fun!

There is nothing like that feeling of not having to worry about pre-nut, pulling out on time, or a baby. I have been going absolutely HAM.
Click to expand...
how much it cost?
 
Last edited:
DCAllAmerican said:
I always post this whenever this topic comes on. Good read. 

Don't Marry | Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men https://dontmarry.wordpress.com/
Click to expand...

repped. this article is :pimp: :nthat: :smokin


There were a lot of dudes in this thread claiming these reasons for getting married. All debunked rather well in this artcle

Many of the traditional reasons why a man gets married are a myth.

“I won’t die alone”
Wrong. The simple fact is that one spouse WILL die alone. Visit the hospital and go to the terminally ill or cardiac departments. Few people have the time to sit with an ill relative all day and all night. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren’t having the same thoughts as you are. You’re contemplating your mortality, while they’re wondering what food the hospital cafeteria offers. In the end, even with a loving and supportive family, most of us will leave this world alone, unless you both die simultaneously in an accident of some kind. Your spouse may die fifteen years before you, or you may be in the hospital for your last year. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

“I won’t grow old alone”
Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 or 70. Many married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. Now they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half or more of their life’s assets, losing half their retirement and pension funds, and being assessed alimony payments. Experiencing financial devastation from one divorce often may preclude a man from ever marrying again. This is a common observation of many middle-aged Western Women. Q: “Where are all the men?”. A: “He is broke from the divorce settlement, alimony and child support payments.” Thus these women don’t find him marriable, and he grows old alone and poor.

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies only one destiny; that of a solitary monk in a cave, a shunned loner. However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you cannot continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. A bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, because most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person who gives back nothing in emotion, affection or support. Young men in their 20’s and 30’s should be more aware of the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

“I’ll get regular sex”
Not from Modern, Western Women. Access to regular sex is the oldest and the most frequently cited reason to marry. Many men now know that Modern, Western Women frequently stop having sex after just a short time of being married. There are plenty of “sexless” marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids, or the sex may be as infrequent as once a year or once every six months, or the wife may only have sex when she wants the husband to buy her something, take her somewhere, or remodel the house. Read the honest opinions of married men on the Internet. Most Western, Married Men will have more sex with their Western Wives in the first six months of their marriage than they will in the next 40 years. Lastly, it remains to be seen whether sex with one exclusive partner for forty years or more is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. In many Western Nations, the wife is no longer required to have sex with her husband. She can deny him at any time, for any length of time. She can, if she wishes, deny him sex forever and there is nothing that he can do about it. In fact, if he insists that she honor her end of the marriage contract by being available for sexual relations, he can and will be accused of, charged with, and arrested for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault or Rape.

Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

“I’ll have someone to cook and clean for me”
Not necessarily. While a Modern, Western Woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves the man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children, while the wife gets to play at being a housekeeper. Today’s woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties because she is not working, he will often be labeled sexist, abusive or controlling, even if he is doing his “traditional role” of paying all the bills, providing for his family, and performing the traditional manly duties of vehicle repairs, maintaining the lawn and house upkeep.

“I have to be married to have kids”
Not anymore. Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at the government center in order to be fertilised by your sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. You do not need to be married to own a dream home together. It is ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than divorced parents or married parents who are ineffective, inattentive or incompetent.

-Having a lifelong, faithful, committed relationship has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Owning a beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Rearing healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Building a family and life together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Growing old together has nothing to do with being “married”.

In fact, recent changes in cohabitation, partner and marriage law have proven that the only tangible consequence of marriage is having a formalised separation process that usually requires the talents of an attorney.

You do need to be married in order to throw an extravagant four-hour party, and share the same last name.

You do need to be married in order to involve the state and government in your romantic affairs.

You do need to be married in order give away half of everything you own.

Besides that, marriage does nothing more than introduce lawyers and social workers into your life. These are people that otherwise would have nothing to do with your life or your relationship.

Men need to stop and ask themselves:

“Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world? What is the benefit to me to get married?”

It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight on her unilateral whim.

Marriage was originally created as a way for families to merge land, property, political power and influence; perhaps people should return to viewing it as just that and nothing more. The rest of it is fake modern TV Fantasy and Tabloid Gossip and Hype polluting the minds of today’s impressionable youth, and a way to keep the multi-billion-per-year wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should be to ask oneself: “How excited am I for us to merge our finances and assets?” When all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. Spend a day in divorce court, and you’ll see exactly what is real and tangible and lasting about marriage. You’ll see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Bouquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that is coming to them and more! The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes. “For better or for worse…”

The Western Divorce rate is 43%. It is higher in some parts of the world such as California, Great Britain and Australia. In Japan the recent change in pension law may have many pensioners out on the street. In India new changes to dowry law have men being threatened by their wives. Consider the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay; Men who don’t want to lose 50%, women who know they can’t support themselves alone. Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these “forced marriages”, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity, no sex, or sleeping in separate beds or separate rooms. I estimate the percentage of happy and monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture, investment or loan? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday through marriage.
Click to expand...
 
combo gd said:
Another reason I will never get married because I know monogamy isn't natural. Knowing it isn't natural makes me not want to force it. Monogamy is the result of females needing safety and security, protecting their infants from infanticide, and the serendipitous result of democracy.
Click to expand...

You sure it's women who want monogamy? I don't know a man who would be cool with his woman having a polygamous relationship
 
Wafflegeist said:
Master Zik said:
Wafflegeist said:
Didn't really read the thread but marriage is an institution that just doesn't work for me. Still want the house and kids....
Click to expand...
This makes me wonder since I want this too and I just accepted I'd have the mother involved if there's an alternative route? :nerd:

I know of women and a few personally that have opted to be a single parent. They pay for that sperm at the sperm back or freeze their eggs and cop some sperm and get a surrogate. Can a man do that?

I think I know that most adoption agencies won't let you adopt as a single parent so if a dude for w/e reason just wanted to be a single dad does he even have any options?

I forget what movie or show it was but it did involve a young kid fresh out of college really wanting to have an Asian baby for w/e reason and after some time actually got to adopt the baby and raise it as a single father :lol: I don't think that'd fly in reality though for many reasons.
Click to expand...

I would imagine if adoption was the route then being a single father just drops you to the bottom of the list. I think finding an egg donor is probably the easier route of all the ways to have a kid without dealing with women.

It's a struggle no matter how you slice it imo so you might as well shoot up the club and see how far you get with shorty.
Click to expand...
The struggle as a parent isn't even what I'm worried about.

Women got the clear option of a sperm donor and just impregnate themselves. If there's a market for egg donors like that (I gotta look it up to see if that's common), a dude gotta buy the egg, inseminate it, and then pay for a surrogate.
 
the struggle i was talking about was dealing with women (finding the egg donor, surrogates, adoption, relationships, etc) 
laugh.gif
 
Oh well I think I finding an egg would come down to money and the donor being cool with giving it to me. I was also wondering if there was something like a egg bank the way you got a sperm bank. Women don't even have to meet the men when they take their sperm. They have a choice of men as they read hrough their descriptions. Should be something like that for men to look at to see which egg they want.

As far as adoption goes, if you don't want to deal with women just adopt the baby that got abandoned by their parents. The real struggle there is the agency finding you suitable to be the parent.
 
heLiumcLinton said:
combo gd said:
Another reason I will never get married because I know monogamy isn't natural. Knowing it isn't natural makes me not want to force it. Monogamy is the result of females needing safety and security, protecting their infants from infanticide, and the serendipitous result of democracy.
Click to expand...

You sure it's women who want monogamy? I don't know a man who would be cool with his woman having a polygamous relationship
Click to expand...

As a whole, women have developed more of a need for monogamy than men. If you have time check out my spoiler. I feel you though, I wouldn't want my woman to be in a polygamous relationship.
 
Last edited:
combo gd said:
heLiumcLinton said:
combo gd said:
Another reason I will never get married because I know monogamy isn't natural. Knowing it isn't natural makes me not want to force it. Monogamy is the result of females needing safety and security, protecting their infants from infanticide, and the serendipitous result of democracy.
Click to expand...

You sure it's women who want monogamy? I don't know a man who would be cool with his woman having a polygamous relationship
Click to expand...

As a whole, women have developed more of a need for monogamy than men. If you have time check out my spoiler. I feel you though, I wouldn't want my woman to be in a polygamous relationship.
Click to expand...
So men want to be in a polygamous relationship but don't want their women to be. Greedy ************* :smh:
 
i know a dude who is worth over 1-2 billion and his flock of women have no qualms about time-sharing his D.

I think there is a certain monetary threshold that can be reached where women can look the other way when it comes to being in a "harem."

It's funny how if you're poor and cheat, you're seen as a bad person but when you're worth serious $$$ chicks subliminally know there is plenty to go around and don't have the instinct to "defend" their financial security from their competitors i.e. other women.
 
Last edited:
As usual there is extremism that doesnt apply to the majority of us in here. If you want a solid and stable family unit, a place to call home, and someone to be with through all of it there isnt anything better than marriage out there. What is the point of stacking chips if you dont have that one person to share them with. Im not on that there is just one person out there nonsense...but most people view marriage as a continuously paying returns process.

To me it is simple. It is like basketball. Even though I know that someday I will be too old to play anymore I still want to be involved in it now. In the beginning it was exciting, passionate, etc and now it is a mature and methodical love. It is a big part of what makes me excited to wake up everyday. There is no price I can put on that.
 
It's not worth it, the man has the most to lose. I been married but got divorce luckily before I got I graduate and start making serious money. Only way I would get married again is if I do a prenup and wifey is almost on the same level as me (salary, intelligence).
 
^ most dudes on NT can't handle themselves

Of course they can't handle a woman too

NT full of man children
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom