Monogamy

[Cunning_Linguist]

Monogamy is an idea that I've struggled with throughout my life. First of all, I'm only 25 years old, so yes I don't have decades of experience, but I have been with over 100 partners and been in many different types of relationships. Monogamy often reminds me a bit of religion. A social construct that controls behavior and often violates natural impulses, often using fear, insecurity or ignorance as leverage. I'm just curious to see how many of you out there truly believe in monogamy?

 

Don't get me wrong I definitely believe in love, but just not in traditional forms of relationships. Just as I feel with religion, I think that each person is unique and should find out for themselves what resonates with their energy. I've seen people become very unhappy just because they decided to follow a certain idea without truly knowing who they are or what they really want. This is why I consider myself spiritual and not religious and why I don't quite believe in monogamy.

 

I'll conclude with one of my favorite quotes:

 

“We have this idea that love is supposed to last forever. But love isn't like that. It's a free-flowing energy that comes and goes when it pleases. Sometimes, it stays for life; other times it stays for a second, a day, a month or a year. So don't fear love when it comes simply because it makes you vulnerable. But don't be surprised when it leaves either. Just be glad you had the opportunity to experience it.”

[RonaldS]

Monogamy is stupid.

 

Yeah, I said it. And before anybody tries to put me on blast, I was monogamous for over a decade, so it's not a baseless perspective.

 

It's an unnatural construct. It's a man-made invention that really serves no purpose other than to protect one's own feelings of worth and security. In and of itself, it's not terrible, but people put so much weight into it....they inflate the significance of this idea of two people meant for only each other, for life. It romanticized and idealized to the point of obsession.

 

The issue is that it's unilaterally established as the 'right' thing to do, but it's just not practical or realistic, and the stats more than back that up.

 

Monogamy does not exist anywhere in nature. Even those other species that we like to promulgate as being monogamous, such as many species of birds, cheat all the time, and there is a lot of genetic evidence to substantiate that. So, while daddy swan is building a nest so his lifelong partner can raise young, mommy swan is often times getting banged by another swan and bringing his offspring back to the best that daddy swan built. Don't believe me? You should.

 

People associate love and monogamy, but they can easily be mutually exclusive and effectively managed as such. But a lot of people are too sensitive to accept that.

[d0nnivain]

I like monogamy.

 

 

If you don't that's fine. Just be open with your partner. Don't make the other person think they are the only one of they are not. Lying is bad.

[soccerrprp]

Man, there are some erroneous, uninformed constructs here...

 

1. Monogamy is natural, not so prevalent, but exists in nature outside of man

2. Monogamy was encouraged b/c it was MORE practical than polygamy

3. Monogamy can be achieved, has been achieved and continues to be the preference especially with women

4. In terms of what is natural and what isn't, comparing human behavior/social constructs with "other" animals is not wholly safe or equivalent for a number of reasons

[Cunning_Linguist]

Man, there are some erroneous, uninformed constructs here...

 

1. Monogamy is natural, not so prevalent, but exists in nature outside of man

2. Monogamy was encouraged b/c it was MORE practical than polygamy

3. Monogamy can be achieved, has been achieved and continues to be the preference especially with women

4. In terms of what is natural and what isn't, comparing human behavior/social constructs with "other" animals is not wholly safe or equivalent for a number of reasons

 

This is all understood already. I wasn't trying to invalidate monogamy as an idea, because I think it can work for some people, and even animals. Rawr.

 

How do you back up number 2?

 

For number 3, I agree, but I believe that much of our "preferences" don't resonate with with who we truly are. Meaning they are a sort of brainwashing by the people who deemed the practicality pertaining to number 2. How many of these women have explored their wants and desires, have challenged certain insecurities and beliefs, to truly say that monogamy is what they prefer?

 

A bit confusing because number 4 contradicts number 1.

 

What are your personal experiences with it?

[Cunning_Linguist]

I like monogamy.

 

 

If you don't that's fine. Just be open with your partner. Don't make the other person think they are the only one of they are not. Lying is bad.

 

I agree. Honesty is always best, even if it does hurt. How much relationship experience do you have outside of monogamy? Do you like monogamy because it makes you feel safe and comfortable, or because it is fulfilling and enriches your life?

[Cunning_Linguist]

Monogamy is stupid.

 

Yeah, I said it. And before anybody tries to put me on blast, I was monogamous for over a decade, so it's not a baseless perspective.

 

It's an unnatural construct. It's a man-made invention that really serves no purpose other than to protect one's own feelings of worth and security. In and of itself, it's not terrible, but people put so much weight into it....they inflate the significance of this idea of two people meant for only each other, for life. It romanticized and idealized to the point of obsession.

 

The issue is that it's unilaterally established as the 'right' thing to do, but it's just not practical or realistic, and the stats more than back that up.

 

Monogamy does not exist anywhere in nature. Even those other species that we like to promulgate as being monogamous, such as many species of birds, cheat all the time, and there is a lot of genetic evidence to substantiate that. So, while daddy swan is building a nest so his lifelong partner can raise young, mommy swan is often times getting banged by another swan and bringing his offspring back to the best that daddy swan built. Don't believe me? You should.

 

People associate love and monogamy, but they can easily be mutually exclusive and effectively managed as such. But a lot of people are too sensitive to accept that.

 

I hear you. I just hope you don't give up on love!!!

 

I like to think that perhaps both of you weren't ready to be together, weren't strong enough, weren't willing to be vulnerable. I don't know you or anything, but this is often the case in my experience. An imbalance.

 

I agree with a lot said but I still believe (maybe the hopeless romantic in me WANTS to believe) that monogamy can work. I don't want to become jaded and not give things a chance by limiting my perspective.

[central]

I've been in (long-term) monogamous relationships, polyamorous relationships, open relationships, and swinger-style relationships.

 

Monogamy is natural - but ONLY on a spectrum of human relationship types that range from strict monogamy to complete promiscuity. All are natural modes for humans, and the prevailing mode is heavily affected by culture, society, and religion. Even in mostly monogamous cultures (e.g., Western Judeo-Christian), there are plenty of people who do not find that natural or fulfilling - and rightly so. Many do, though, and rightly so for them.

 

It's pretty obvious just looking at the statistics on divorce, cheating, etc., that we promote a socially monogamous relationship model while privately practicing a sexually promiscuous model.

 

The problems come from not understanding our nature, blindly accepting the cultural model without knowing if it works for us as an individual, and trying to live in a relationship style that isn't suitable to us.

[soccerrprp]

This is all understood already. I wasn't trying to invalidate monogamy as an idea, because I think it can work for some people, and even animals. Rawr.

 

How do you back up number 2?

 

For number 3, I agree, but I believe that much of our "preferences" don't resonate with with who we truly are. Meaning they are a sort of brainwashing by the people who deemed the practicality pertaining to number 2. How many of these women have explored their wants and desires, have challenged certain insecurities and beliefs, to truly say that monogamy is what they prefer?

 

A bit confusing because number 4 contradicts number 1.

 

What are your personal experiences with it?

 

2. It became, as society changed, that having many wives was not financially feasible.

 

For 1 &4, I'm simply saying that Monogamy is a natural phenomenon so natural in that over-encompassing way AND that when you define how humans should behave, it's not as easy as looking at nature. Humans are capable of much more and are defined by much more than the confines of the natural world. Not really a contradiction.

[Silver93]

What exactly is the definition of monogamy? Does it mean being with the same partner for all your life?

[RonaldS]

Man, there are some erroneous, uninformed constructs here...

 

1. Monogamy is natural, not so prevalent, but exists in nature outside of man

2. Monogamy was encouraged b/c it was MORE practical than polygamy

3. Monogamy can be achieved, has been achieved and continues to be the preference especially with women

4. In terms of what is natural and what isn't, comparing human behavior/social constructs with "other" animals is not wholly safe or equivalent for a number of reasons

 

I will preface by saying that I have a BS in zoology with an emphasis in evolution, so my points are not made from some out-of-left-field perspective.

 

Monogamy, on the whole, is in no way, shape or form more practical than polygamy. That's why it's practically unheard of in the animal world. Fine, if you want to cite the handful of outliers out of probably hundreds of thousands of species spread out through every phyla, fine. Those are outliers, and even within those few species, tons of evidence exists that shows that even monogamous species 'cheat' frequently.

 

In most cases, monogamy is just not a great reproductive strategy. If we want to look just in mammals, the overwhelmingly most common reproductive strategy is one male and multiple females. The vast, vast majority of mammals reproduce this way. The reasoning is pretty simple. One male can fertilize multiple females, but one female cannot be fertilized by multiple males. Sure, in subsequent matings, a different male can fertilize the same female (take my aunt, for example), but it's just not reproductively advantageous to do so.

 

Female mammals in particular put an emphasis on mating with the male that gives their offspring the best chance at survival in that environment at that time. Typically, there will be a wide spectrum of males, but the top few are the ones who reproduce with the vast majority of the females (sound familiar). Again, it's economical in terms of survivability of the species, which is always the ultimate end goal. One male with outstanding genetic material is more sought after by females, and that one male will reproduce with much greater frequency because that one male can fertilize multiple females in each breeding event. Simple reproductive economics. Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable.

 

Seals do it, whales do it, wolves do it, bears do it, mice do it, lions do it, virtually all primates do it, deer do it, horses do it, elephants do it, capybaras do it, and many human societies do it...and on and on.

 

Monogamy, where it does exist, seems to occur most in birds. I don't know why, but I would guess it has a lot to do with the overall high degree of mobility that birds have. In some wide ranging birds, particularly migratory species, probably best to hook up with one to guarantee that you will always have a mate on hand than to risk something goofy happening, like you get lost on your way to Canada from Mexico.

 

Our version of monogamy is goofy, stemming from the idea of marriage. But marriage is an idea that is extremely outdated. Marriage was constructed ages ago as essentially a way to protect property and assets. Two families could get together and pool their resources, and have greater protection of those resources by hooking a boy and a girl up.

 

This discussion can go on forever. That's a general overview of the basics of reproduction. Strategies are favored for based on economics. In 'k' strategists like mammals (low fecundity, high parental investment), it's far more economical to just have one male popping numerous females. In 'k' strategists, there are typically more females in a population than males for this reason. In 'r' strategists, where parental investment is low, it's ok to just spill a bunch of eggs and sperm out into the environment and hope for the best.

 

Naturally, there are exceptions. Many fish have hierarchical breeding communities where there is one female and numerous males, although those species tend to be hermaphroditic.

[Arieswoman]

Anyone who thinks that 'monogamy is stupid' is entitled to their opinion.

 

As long as you pick others as partners who don't like monogamy either, that's fine by me.

 

Just don't pick those who are looking for monogamy and lie to them that you are monogamous when you aren't.

[RonaldS]

Anyone who thinks that 'monogamy is stupid' is entitled to their opinion.

 

As long as you pick others as partners who don't like monogamy either, that's fine by me.

 

Just don't pick those who are looking for monogamy and lie to them that you are monogamous when you aren't.

 

The reason I think it's stupid is that it causes far more problems than it solves.

 

A fun exercise is to think of all of the couples that you know, and then do an inventory of all of the couples that have been together for more than 10 years who have a truly happy relationship and are truly satisfied in their relationship.

 

If you're being at all objective, you will probably come up with a very small number. It's not natural....that's why there are SOOOOOOOO many relationship problems. We have to behave unnaturally for it to work. It can be done. By some, for life. By many, temporarily.

 

If we want to debate the virtues of the 'naturalness' of monogamy, I will happily point you in the direction of the gobs and gobs of threads on this site alone that illustrate just what a pipe-dream this construct is.

[soccerrprp]

I will preface by saying that I have a BS in zoology with an emphasis in evolution, so my points are not made from some out-of-left-field perspective.

 

Monogamy, on the whole, is in no way, shape or form more practical than polygamy. That's why it's practically unheard of in the animal world. Fine, if you want to cite the handful of outliers out of probably hundreds of thousands of species spread out through every phyla, fine. Those are outliers, and even within those few species, tons of evidence exists that shows that even monogamous species 'cheat' frequently.

 

In most cases, monogamy is just not a great reproductive strategy. If we want to look just in mammals, the overwhelmingly most common reproductive strategy is one male and multiple females. The vast, vast majority of mammals reproduce this way. The reasoning is pretty simple. One male can fertilize multiple females, but one female cannot be fertilized by multiple males. Sure, in subsequent matings, a different male can fertilize the same female (take my aunt, for example), but it's just not reproductively advantageous to do so.

 

Female mammals in particular put an emphasis on mating with the male that gives their offspring the best chance at survival in that environment at that time. Typically, there will be a wide spectrum of males, but the top few are the ones who reproduce with the vast majority of the females (sound familiar). Again, it's economical in terms of survivability of the species, which is always the ultimate end goal. One male with outstanding genetic material is more sought after by females, and that one male will reproduce with much greater frequency because that one male can fertilize multiple females in each breeding event. Simple reproductive economics. Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable.

 

Seals do it, whales do it, wolves do it, bears do it, mice do it, lions do it, virtually all primates do it, deer do it, horses do it, elephants do it, capybaras do it, and many human societies do it...and on and on.

 

Monogamy, where it does exist, seems to occur most in birds. I don't know why, but I would guess it has a lot to do with the overall high degree of mobility that birds have. In some wide ranging birds, particularly migratory species, probably best to hook up with one to guarantee that you will always have a mate on hand than to risk something goofy happening, like you get lost on your way to Canada from Mexico.

 

Our version of monogamy is goofy, stemming from the idea of marriage. But marriage is an idea that is extremely outdated. Marriage was constructed ages ago as essentially a way to protect property and assets. Two families could get together and pool their resources, and have greater protection of those resources by hooking a boy and a girl up.

 

This discussion can go on forever. That's a general overview of the basics of reproduction. Strategies are favored for based on economics. In 'k' strategists like mammals (low fecundity, high parental investment), it's far more economical to just have one male popping numerous females. In 'k' strategists, there are typically more females in a population than males for this reason. In 'r' strategists, where parental investment is low, it's ok to just spill a bunch of eggs and sperm out into the environment and hope for the best.

 

Naturally, there are exceptions. Many fish have hierarchical breeding communities where there is one female and numerous males, although those species tend to be hermaphroditic.

 

Impressive. Outliers count too. Thus, IT DOES EXIST in nature and these species, after thousands/millions of years OF EVOLUTION have existed and continue to exist for some reason in such a state. So, not disputing you on the fact that the vast majority of species are not monogamous.

 

Again, human behavior and the evolution (unnatural) of it and society are much more complicated than the forces that drive "natural" evolution.

 

BTW, MS in Molecular Biology.

[StanMusial]

Anyone who thinks that 'monogamy is stupid' is entitled to their opinion.

 

As long as you pick others as partners who don't like monogamy either, that's fine by me.

 

Just don't pick those who are looking for monogamy and lie to them that you are monogamous when you aren't.

 

I guess if you are going to argue against societal constructs, there's no need to be honest or dishonest about it. Just do whatever gets you through the night.

[Cunning_Linguist]

What exactly is the definition of monogamy? Does it mean being with the same partner for all your life?

 

In this case I meant it as being faithful to one partner, exclusivity, for an extended period of time. Doesn't have to be lifelong.

[Hello_is_it_me]

I will preface by saying that I have a BS in zoology with an emphasis in evolution, so my points are not made from some out-of-left-field perspective.

 

Monogamy, on the whole, is in no way, shape or form more practical than polygamy. That's why it's practically unheard of in the animal world. Fine, if you want to cite the handful of outliers out of probably hundreds of thousands of species spread out through every phyla, fine. Those are outliers, and even within those few species, tons of evidence exists that shows that even monogamous species 'cheat' frequently.

 

In most cases, monogamy is just not a great reproductive strategy. If we want to look just in mammals, the overwhelmingly most common reproductive strategy is one male and multiple females. The vast, vast majority of mammals reproduce this way. The reasoning is pretty simple. One male can fertilize multiple females, but one female cannot be fertilized by multiple males. Sure, in subsequent matings, a different male can fertilize the same female (take my aunt, for example), but it's just not reproductively advantageous to do so.

 

Female mammals in particular put an emphasis on mating with the male that gives their offspring the best chance at survival in that environment at that time. Typically, there will be a wide spectrum of males, but the top few are the ones who reproduce with the vast majority of the females (sound familiar). Again, it's economical in terms of survivability of the species, which is always the ultimate end goal. One male with outstanding genetic material is more sought after by females, and that one male will reproduce with much greater frequency because that one male can fertilize multiple females in each breeding event. Simple reproductive economics. Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable.

 

Seals do it, whales do it, wolves do it, bears do it, mice do it, lions do it, virtually all primates do it, deer do it, horses do it, elephants do it, capybaras do it, and many human societies do it...and on and on.

 

Monogamy, where it does exist, seems to occur most in birds. I don't know why, but I would guess it has a lot to do with the overall high degree of mobility that birds have. In some wide ranging birds, particularly migratory species, probably best to hook up with one to guarantee that you will always have a mate on hand than to risk something goofy happening, like you get lost on your way to Canada from Mexico.

 

Our version of monogamy is goofy, stemming from the idea of marriage. But marriage is an idea that is extremely outdated. Marriage was constructed ages ago as essentially a way to protect property and assets. Two families could get together and pool their resources, and have greater protection of those resources by hooking a boy and a girl up.

 

This discussion can go on forever. That's a general overview of the basics of reproduction. Strategies are favored for based on economics. In 'k' strategists like mammals (low fecundity, high parental investment), it's far more economical to just have one male popping numerous females. In 'k' strategists, there are typically more females in a population than males for this reason. In 'r' strategists, where parental investment is low, it's ok to just spill a bunch of eggs and sperm out into the environment and hope for the best.

 

Naturally, there are exceptions. Many fish have hierarchical breeding communities where there is one female and numerous males, although those species tend to be hermaphroditic.

 

I understand your perspective here (I have a Biology degree) and while I do believe male humans are hardwired for monogamy - I will still say - if someone finds a single partner that satisfies them emotionally, sexually, and spiritually, then they are a lucky person. In today's world, successful monogamy just seems like an efficient and less-problematic construct (imo). Any monogamists have children? Are they spread around the country like dandelion seeds?

[TaraMaiden]

I'm of the opinion, personally, that humans actually choose to be 'serial Monogamists' - that is to say, we actively - in this, our current standard Western Society, hold the general opinion that having more than one partner at a time, is at best, unusual, and at worst, despicable.

We Condition our peers, siblings and offspring to value monogamy as the ideal, above other possibilities.

 

We are, however, as strict mammals, not 'naturally designed' to only have one partner.

in fact, looking at the expansive list of existent mammals, there are indeed almost no mammals at all that are strictly and continuously monogamous.

We are encouraged, by human laws, religion and to some degree, politics, to be CONTINUALLY monogamous.

 

Other societies, nations and cultures, do NOT frown on bigamy. In fact, in some cases, it is positively encouraged.

There is a slow, growing yet still 'sensational' trend towards polyamory. But given the conditioning contemporary adults have hitherto endured, it is still a touchy and sensitive subject. One which many - even those purporting to being 'open-minded' about trying it - find difficult to actually accept and practice, even.

 

Polyamory is where (for example) two people agree to be a primary couple, but each partner is free to date others, and engage in physical relations with them. These secondary partners are also free to do the same.

 

Taking this to its fullest degree, this would involve an indeterminate number of people, all practising, theoretically, "free Love" with no objections from anyone else they would be involved with.

 

Easy to define.

I would say in current social climate, almost impossible to actually implement.

 

So we practise serial monogamy. One partner at a time. Several partners probably, though....

 

if we choose to see other people simultaneously, it's important that we are open and honest about it.

If we choose to see people behind our partner's back - that's cheating.

[RonaldS]

Impressive. Outliers count too. Thus, IT DOES EXIST in nature and these species, after thousands/millions of years OF EVOLUTION have existed and continue to exist for some reason in such a state. So, not disputing you on the fact that the vast majority of species are not monogamous.

 

Again, human behavior and the evolution (unnatural) of it and society are much more complicated than the forces that drive "natural" evolution.

 

BTW, MS in Molecular Biology.

 

That's what makes it unnatural. We are countering the way we've evolved with how some of us want us to be without any real evolutionarily justifiable reason to do so. It's not at all selectively advantageous for us, and by 'us', I'm specifying men.

 

We want things to be a certain way, so we try to short-circuit our wiring to make it work.

 

And I'm not at all dismissing outliers...just calling them what they are. Just like truly happy, fulfilled life-long relationships. They exist, so we can't say that they're impossible. But they are clearly more exceptions to the rule than the rule.

[Owl]

I think it's a great concept when people actually decide to follow it.

 

For those that choose not to, that's fine too.

 

As long as you don't set expectations of monogamy (either stated or implied) with a partner, and they feel the same as you, there's no issue. The only other time there's an issue is when your choices impinges on the choices of others...such as choosing to sleep with someone who has promised monogamy. Then your choice impinges on the choice of THEIR spouse...and that's hardly fair.

 

I personally don't care if no one else believes in monogamy, as long as they don't disrupt my monogamous lifestyle. In return...I won't disrupt their choices either.

 

Why can't we all just get along?

[TaraMaiden]

By the way, it appears I made a mistake.

 

Hey, enjoy it while you can - I rarely make mistakes, and even more rarely, admit to them.....

[MissBee]

Monogamy is an idea that I've struggled with throughout my life. First of all, I'm only 25 years old, so yes I don't have decades of experience, but I have been with over 100 partners and been in many different types of relationships. Monogamy often reminds me a bit of religion. A social construct that controls behavior and often violates natural impulses, often using fear, insecurity or ignorance as leverage. I'm just curious to see how many of you out there truly believe in monogamy?

 

Don't get me wrong I definitely believe in love, but just not in traditional forms of relationships. Just as I feel with religion, I think that each person is unique and should find out for themselves what resonates with their energy. I've seen people become very unhappy just because they decided to follow a certain idea without truly knowing who they are or what they really want. This is why I consider myself spiritual and not religious and why I don't quite believe in monogamy.

 

I'll conclude with one of my favorite quotes:

 

“We have this idea that love is supposed to last forever. But love isn't like that. It's a free-flowing energy that comes and goes when it pleases. Sometimes, it stays for life; other times it stays for a second, a day, a month or a year. So don't fear love when it comes simply because it makes you vulnerable. But don't be surprised when it leaves either. Just be glad you had the opportunity to experience it.”

 

Monogamy doesn't mean a relationship has to last forever, it just means that you don't see multiple people at the same time. However, monogamy isn't forced on anyone. You can have polyamorous,,open and other kinds of relationships of your choosing with people who feel similarly and certainly in some cultures and historically at different times this was/is the cultural normal.

 

The natural or unnatural argument is moot IMO. There is no one natural thing for humans. Some humans (like some other species) mate monogamously and some don't. For the humans who feel most comfortable with monogamy, they should do so freely and choose people who also prefer this type of partnership. Likewise, for the humans who feel uncomfortable with it and prefer something else, then they too should be free to be with others who feel similarly and to do what's comfortable.

 

I am monogamous when coupled because I truly want it...if at any point I want something else, I am free to speak up about it and want a relationship where I feel comfortable enough to admit this. I think the issue isn't monogamy so much as people are fearful of the truth because the truth means other people can choose not to comply. That is, so many people want things how they want it and know that if they are honest someone else might say "No thank you", and because they don't want that, they pretend in order to get what they want and in order to stop others from choosing differently. Case in point, cheaters who supposedly don't believe in monogamy, but what they mean is they don't believe in monogamy for THEMSELVES but they want their SO to be monogamous and exclusive with them OR they want an open relationship but think their SO will say no, so prefer to secretly have outside relationships as a way to have both things: a partner who is unaware and outside relationships.

Edited March 31, 2014 by MissBee

[Furious]

The problem with those who don't believe in monogamy is that they rarely admit it to the person they're either pursuing or in a relationship with that they're presently involved with but have not disclosed this pertinent info as this may or will turn off their object of affection.

 

I'm all for personal freedom....but not at the expense of deceiving someone else in that endeavour.

 

Nothing wrong being true to yourself....just as long as you extend your truth and respect someone else's choice in your truth.

[veritas lux mea]

Usually it is men who have multiple wives in societies that accept polygamy due to plain and simple biology. As we now have dna tests that reason is no longer needed but after 1000 of years it is hard to change your way. Also, many places these women don't even have a choice because they are less than men.

 

Monogamy does create security. A lot of people get emotinaly attatched to who they are having sex with. We are different than other species that way. So you want that person to be attatched to you. But what if that person is getting more attatched to another person.

 

At this point I believe poly does not work for the majority of people. Not open but actually committed relationships to more than one person. Almost everyone wants to be number 1 to their spouse. So with the fact relationships fail you are just upping your chance for failure by adding more and more people. Sex only open marriages is different.

[Shepp]

monogamy in my mind is perfect!

Only i dont go out and tell everyone else they should live like that!

 

I think non-mongamy is pathetic - but if thats the way people choose to live, let them, i dont understand the constant need of people to defend there position......who are they trying to convince?

 

 

If i could compare one of the two lifestyles to religion it would be non-monogamy because for some reason the folk who believe in that fell the need to shove it down everyone else throat!