Monogamy and moral constructions of sexual and couple exclusivity

Introduction

From a biological point of view, we understand monogamy as an exclusive reproductive union of two individuals of the same species. It is most commonly associated with romantic love. For many, this is the main reason to enter marriage. Compulsory monogamy was introduced around the year 1000 among Jews. This measure was introduced first only as an experiment, but it has lasted for another thousand years. Although it is disputed whether we can call it a stable pillar of partnership (Uzel, 2010, p. 56).

For humans, polygamy was natural to us, and it was practical for nomadic tribes. Only with the development of agriculture did people settle and create lasting bonds. The industrial revolution also strengthened this, allowing women greater financial independence, and therefore changing the nature of relationships. It is interesting that polygamy is almost unknown in modern industrial societies. It is mainly associated with so-called primitive communities, whether in the past or today. After the industrial revolution, romantic love came to the fore. It is a misconception to think that relationships in history were established mainly on ideals of love. In the past, this was primarily for economic, financial, or political reasons (Dallaire, 2009, p. 34). “In the Middle Ages, a couple lived together for about twenty years (from fifteen to thirty-five), and survival depended on how tasks were divided within the pair” (Dallaire, 2009, p. 35). Today we expect husbands and wives to live together for forty, fifty years. Despite scientific knowledge about human coexistence in the past (from antiquity to modern times), including non-monogamous communities, publications still appear that deny this fact. Many authors write about monogamous communities, for example, already in ancient Egypt (Lewinsohn, 1992, p. 16–17).

Some authors additionally argue that monogamous pairs were also formed by the first people who left Africa. These relationships may have been monogamous because they were less “costly” compared to polygamous relationships. However, it is hard to infer organized polygamy in the times of the earliest communities. Contemporary pairs and ties were rather casual and fluid (the word fluid is used here in the sense in which A. Giddens uses it).

Monogamy

The most controversial moment of monogamy is precisely its “naturalness,” as social constructivism points out. For social constructivism, a characteristic feature is the understanding of sexuality as socially constructed (Marková 2009, 2007 et al.). “Although sexuality may seem something natural, normal and biologically given, over history it has undergone several transformations, during which its naturalness and normality took many forms” (Marková, 2012, p. 19). Monogamy is understood as something permanent and natural for Western civilization (Conley, Moors, Matsick and Ziegler, 2012, p.1). In our cultural context, monogamy still applies as a moral norm, and many people assume that this has always been the case throughout human history and cultures, and that this state is the only one that nature has given us as correct. Yet when examining the issue we see this is not so. In the past, and even today in small communities of indigenous peoples, monogamy is not and has not been the norm. Yet we consider it a stable part of couple cohabitation and society. Whether Inuit tribes, indigenous Africans, or American Indians, they all show that non-monogamous relationships can function and be beneficial for the community. As the authors of the article A Critical Examination of popular assumptions about the Benefits and Outcomes of Monogamous Relationships write: The Bible clearly tolerates non-monogamy in several cases, where biblical patriarchs Abraham, Jacob, and David had multiple wives (Conley, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, 2012, p. 1). Various studies and documents show how couples can function even with partner changes, respectively with several partners at the same time. Ryan and Jethá (2014, p. 332) write about people in Melanesia. Even before the islands were colonized by European Christians, sexuality among the indigenous inhabitants was expressed differently. Women reached orgasm naturally, more often, while men only once. After several years of marriage, however, men’s interest in their own wives began to decline. As a response, they had young concubines, which their wife in the household accepted. They considered them symbols of social status. Men note that without young women they would not be so sexually active at an older age (Ryan, Jethá, 2014, 332).

This means that sexual or relational exclusivity is not a norm in every community. One of the main arguments for monogamy is that it protects the romantic relationship. It adds a touch of specialness and exclusivity. Perhaps the best-known definition is offered by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: “Mutual monogamy means you agree to have sexual activity only with one person, and that person agreed to be sexually active only with you” (CDC, 2009).

According to recent surveys by Terri D. Conley from the University of Michigan, participants answered questions about the benefits of monogamy as follows: “A majority of participants, 61%, said that having one partner is an advantage. More than a third mentioned emotional security and reliability. Approximately one third, 29%, stated that relationship comfort and a certain ease in the relationship were important (having someone available with whom we can spend time). Fifty-nine percent of respondents stated that monogamy is beneficial for health (physical, sexual). They expressed that it means no need to use condoms and that sexual life with one partner is more varied. Nineteen percent said that a benefit is the absence of violence and safety. More than half stated that monogamy supports trust in the relationship, and 46% agreed that this type of relationship gives life meaning. Other positive aspects listed were romance, passion, and erotica (Conley, 2013, p. 9).

If a person with one partner for their whole life means having only one sexual partner in their lifetime. In the majority of surveys, the view appears that a person cannot sustain sexual relationship over such a long period with only one partner. This is often the problem and it shakes the standard view of couple relationships. Human beings are not a sexually monogamous species (Barash, Lipton, 2002, p.2). “In all societies where monogamy is institutionalized, institutionalized forms of infidelity also exist. The stricter monogamy is, the more elaborate they are” (Možný, 1990, p. 71).

As human beings, we incline toward emotional monogamy. A more precise term for referring to people is therefore serial monogamy. This means being faithful to the current partner. After ending a previous relationship, one is again faithful to a new partner, but classic monogamy means having truly only one partner throughout one’s life. If, for example, one partner dies, no new one can be found.

We tend to assume that monogamy is moral and that there must be some difference between forbidding a partner to have another lover and forbidding them to have another partner. Chalmers (2018, p. 226) considers this issue constructively and holds that forbidding a partner additional partners is equally immoral and analogously comparable to forbidding extra friends. He therefore argues that monogamy as such is immoral (Chalmers, 2018, p. 226). Leaving our friends because of a partner would mean major changes in our social life. We frequently see unnecessary tension in relationships caused by excessive expectations of the partner. Many relationships benefited precisely from more flexible rules and the possibility of forming even an extramarital contact. Harry Chalmers (2018) argues that monogamy consists in restricting access to immoral acts in the form of a second partner. Chalmers considers the traditional framing of monogamy as insufficient because it allegedly restricts friendship. Christian authors, however, believe in and promote the ideal of monogamy. This happens mainly for religious status and the ideal of family. “The monogamous ideal requires conscious care” (Drápal, p.67, 2013).

According to the mentioned author, it is not possible to have a friendship with a woman who is someone’s wife. The author believes that such friendship behind her husband’s back is a major problem. He does not recognize the paradigm of “freedom in marriage” and claims that flirting with someone else’s wife is a problematic phenomenon.

Kyle York (2019, p. 1) in his article further shows why three traditional pillars of monogamy can be generally reliable, but also why they are not justified and constrain a partnership. Monogamy may be seen only as an expression of a still-prevalent view of romantic love, or from an ethical perspective as moral certainty. Some arguments, according to McMurty (1972), go beyond common understandings of monogamy and claim that several tools and components of monogamy are immoral. Chalmers (2018) argues that romantic and sexual relationships are themselves an important human good. Why then should one not be happy even if one’s partner finds another lover? It is necessary to distinguish between having a good friend and having another partner. If partners in a relationship have great freedom, it can happen (from the viewpoint of traditional biological defenders of monogamy) that the relationship collapses. It may happen that with the arrival of another partner we turn against the previous one and the relationship breaks down. According to Chalmers (2018), though, even this fact should not matter, because what matters is the partner’s good, and if they are happy, we should be as well.

Most of the problems of monogamy are concentrated around sexuality and relationships. Several authors believe that sexual pleasure could be removed from monogamy. For people, it is hard to sustain one sexual relationship over years of marriage. The authors ask whether a random sexual encounter might over time become a complex emotional relationship that would then burden our long-term partner. Chalmers (2018) argues that there is no need to worry, since the emotionally and emotionally demanding relationship is certainly more energy-intensive than sexual activity.

Theory of exclusivity

Exclusivity according to social theory means the exclusion of other partners from the relationship. It is the rule of having exclusively one partner with whom one shares social, emotional, or sexual life. The advantage of such exclusivity from the perspective of monogamous partners may be privacy in the relationship, intimacy, the possibility of knowing all information about each other, integrity and love. Conversely, a moral problem may arise when two friends have sex though they do not share common intimacy and privacy (York, 2019, p. 8). For sociologists of Western society, exclusivity is important especially for preserving offspring, stability of couple and marital relations. Most communities expect sexual activity from spouses. Expectations change depending on culture, religious traditions, or other customs. Many societies fear sharing time and love among additional partners.

By contrast, when we find a new friend, or when another child is born, the others do not lose anything in our love or attention. Why are we so afraid of being with another person, whether in a relationship or just dating? Most people behave classically, monogamously, and despite inner disagreements they do not develop the thoughts we are now writing about. Social discussion is not open to such topics. Largely, this is shaped by religious concepts and supporters of the traditional family (which is a slippery concept, directed primarily toward the political spectrum). “It has been found, however, that married men who have extramarital affairs have higher testosterone levels than model husbands” (Ryan, Jethá, 2014, p.331). For men this state brings greater satisfaction and happiness in marriage. On the other hand, only a third of women with an extramarital relationship expressed similarly. We believe that from the male perspective this state benefits relationships; from the female perspective it is not unequivocal.

Similar topics are taboo in public. Experts should be given greater space and should reflect on natural social development.

Is it better to live in a relationship where we prohibit ourselves or our partner from having additional partners, or is it better to remove such a partner from the relationship? This question is rare and answers to it are not taken seriously at all. One viewpoint allows a degree of tolerance for an unwanted state when we prohibit a partner from acting according to their will, while the other argues why one should stay in such a relationship that brings us no joy. In a society where even divorce is unavailable, one partner may feel trapped. Love does not emerge; instead hate and contempt toward the other person emerge. This is a real danger. Or is it better to sacrifice oneself in a relationship for a greater good and build a long-term relationship with possible further compromises?

Recent American studies showed that 4% to 5% of people in a partner relationship agreed that they would not be monogamous. Partners permitted other sexual or romantic relationships (Conley, Moors, Matsick, and Ziegler, 2011, 2012; Moors, Edelstein, and Conley, 2012, p.5). For comparison, various Tibetan communities, Indian Toda, North American Haida, or Inuit communities accept extramarital relations for both men and women. This may be a reassuring factor even in Western civilization, but in terms of exclusivity and not polygamy or polyandry. Women and men in these and other communities can also have more sexual partners, but their partners must know about it. Both partners are aware of this situation. By contrast, in Western civilization, the overwhelming majority of partners hide their sexual contact. This would lead to breakdown of the relationship. When indigenous peoples were confronted with our reality, they were very surprised as to why a man or woman would not ask about sexual contact with another person. According to their morality, this is proper.

George Murdock, an American ethnographer, mapped more than 1,200 human communities around the world. For lay audiences, the striking finding was that only 186 of them live in exclusive monogamy, which represents 15%. Stable polygyny is practiced by 48% (453) of communities (Uzel, 2009, p. 256). These extramarital contacts are not always tolerated for the comfort of the involved persons. Sometimes exceptions are allowed, for example: “Among the Colombian Goahiros (Goarijo), Orokai (Orokaiva) enter into them during initiation rituals, even though in everyday circumstances adultery is forbidden. A Talensijský husband who is impotent may also allow his wife extramarital contact so he can ensure offspring” (Skupnik, 2010, p.201). For example, among the Cameroon Banen, where a wife may have sexual contact with any of her husband’s relatives, or among the Mende in West Africa. A man may offer his wife to his relative. Sons of these men sometimes have sexual relations with their father’s wives, but not with their own mother. Similar signs are found in many tribes. These are expressions of hospitality, more relaxed morals, and the like (Skupnik, 2010, p. 201).

The role of sexual exclusivity in a relationship, according to its defenders, should not be only an instrumental part; it should have an expressive and symbolic function. Loving relationships are extremely important to us, but equally vulnerable because we care about another person. Mackeever (2017, p. 7) argues that we know our partner can leave us at any time because of infidelity. In some societies, stability of relationships is supported also by conventions that help hold the relationship together. Societies with a strong tradition and family cohabitation are therefore more thorough in monitoring situations and in this way guiding the couple. Exclusive rights to sexual intercourse with one’s partner is an ideal for us (Western culture). “Also another 44% of societies condemn not only women’s extramarital relationships but also men’s, and these men may be punished for violating the ban, sometimes very severely” (Skupnik, 2010, p. 202). In the remaining cultures, wives tolerate their husbands’ behavior more or less.

If a couple sees sexual exclusivity as a positive, and they have agreed to share it exclusively with each other, they show one another reasonableness and the importance of this reality. However, if this is not the case, one person in that pair may feel wronged, simply because both did not agree to this exclusivity. The inner state of such a person, their self-confidence, may be undermined, since in reality we do not know whether their partner simply does not want to discuss it or actually has other interests. If the couple has agreed to exclusivity and one partner deceives the other, the deceived partner may feel much worse. Not only were they deceived, but the agreement made between them was violated. Wasserstrom (1998, pp. 149–150) states that sexual exclusivity can also have instrumental value in terms of keeping the couple bond together. Similarly, it can have symbolic value, expressing devotion, loyalty, and fidelity to one’s partner.

The greatest threat to having multiple partners at once is, according to surveys, jealousy (Conley, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, 2012, p. 6). The problem is that infidelity is relatively easy to prove, while proving fidelity is substantially more difficult. Even if it seems otherwise, one partner who is jealous becomes a slave to emotions and it is impossible for the other to truly show, despite showing love and fidelity, that they are not cheating. We enter a vicious cycle of proving love and jealousy scenes that do not end. Jealousy is a fundamental phenomenon of low self-confidence (White and Mullen, 2005). According to research (Conley, Moors et al., 2012), we know that the level of jealousy is actually lower in relationships where partners agree to non-monogamy. Research by Ritchie and Barker (2006) found that polyamorous communities have developed new terms for different feelings and aspects of jealousy. They encounter discomfort or insecurity when their partner is sexually active with someone else. They must make compromises in order to take pleasure in a partner who has other partners, but most of these feelings are less traumatic than in monogamous relationships. According to some authors, jealousy triggers fear of loss in both material and emotional terms. Other theories emphasize jealousy as fear or anger appearing when someone else threatens one’s own resources or favor. Social theory explains the concept of jealousy in the process of social learning. In the process of adolescence, people establish value hierarchies shaped especially by our upbringing. It has been shown that men, compared to women, place greater emphasis on sexual activity. Women place greater weight on emotional intimacy (Houston, 1981). Male sexuality is more simultaneous; female sexuality is more serial.

For many people, sexuality is a fundamental part of their relationships. This is true for men or women, young people, and those in midlife whether married or in a partner relationship. The influence of this factor is so strong that it is rightly considered one of the integral elements of relationship stability (Sprecher, 2002). Likewise, there are findings that changes in sexual life are often followed by changes in the relationship itself. Although sexual satisfaction brings satisfaction to a relationship, no direct evidence exists yet showing that it is sexual satisfaction that actually makes the relationship better, or that it is precisely a good and satisfying relationship that improves sexual quality. In addition, we know that physical intimacy, cuddling, hugging, and caressing have a very positive and effective impact on sexual satisfaction, especially in long-term marriages (Heiman, 2011).

Research shows that a low degree of emotional satisfaction in the relationship predicts a high level of infidelity (Sprecher, 2002).

Several surveys prove that polyamorous people are more tolerant and open to various relationships. Society, however, remains closed to these people and polyamory as such is stigmatized, especially by people with monogamous convictions. Polyamorous people are therefore considered to be obsessed with sex, selfish, immature, or irresponsible. Society does not believe that polyamory can work. But these couples show that it does, and they claim that one can love more than one person. Some authors say that polyamory is one of the responsible ways of non-monogamous cohabitation. “Advocates of these arrangements have found ways to include additional relationships in their lives without having to lie to one another and destroy their primary partnership” (Ryan, Jethá, 2014, p. 346). Finally, studies on samples of older men show that these men who have regular and more frequent sex (in a long-term relationship this is often with a mistress) have higher testosterone levels. For men who do not have sex, the risk is four times higher of suffering clinical depression, myocardial infarction, and cancer. The risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia also rises (Ryan, Jethá, 2014, p. 335–336). Most men then end up in conflict between satisfying their sexual desires (as a natural human phenomenon) and societal expectation to remain faithful and keep a stable relationship. Due to accepted conventions, men are pushed into unpleasant situations and may choose between: lying (concealing), or fidelity, giving up sex with other women, divorcing and starting a new life with a second woman. None of these options may bring the desired outcome.

Conclusion

The concept of monogamy that was accepted in the past and still persists today is apparently a functional bond between two people. Just as democratic regime is imperfect, yet currently considered the best, monogamy is for now the safest concept of couple cohabitation. Society is opening to new challenges and facing new questions. For this reason, it is appropriate to speak of different other ways and solutions to partnership problems within monogamous relationships. This text does not urge changing established forms of cohabitation, but shows the problems we face. It shows different other scenarios and models of solving these partnership dilemmas.

Autor: Mgr. Boris Kňažko Katedra všeobecnej a aplikovanej etiky FF UKF v Nitre Príspevok vznikol v rámci riešenia projektu VEGA 1/0426/18: Psychologické, socio-kultúrne a biologické zdroje lásky.

List of references used

BARASH, LIPTON,; RYAN, JETHÁ, 2010, in A Critical Examination of Popular Assumptions About the Benefits and Outcomes of Monogamous Relationships, Pers Soc Psychol Rev published online, 2012, Sage

CONLEY, T. D., MOORS, A. C., MATSICK, J. L., ZIEGLER, A, 2012; Kipnis, 2004; Perel, 2006, in A Critical Examination of Popular Assumptions About the Benefits and Outcomes of Monogamous Relationships, Pers Soc Psychol Rev published online, 2012, Sage

CONLEY, T. D., MOORS, A. C., MATSICK, J. L., ZIEGLER, A, 2013. University of Michigan, 2013. The Fewer the Merrier?: Assesing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Nonmonogamous Romantic relationships. Analyses of Social issues and Public policy, Vol. 13.

DALLAIRE, Yvon, Láska a sexualita v trvalém vztahu. Praha: Portál, 2009. ISBN 978-80-7367-523-3

DRÁPAL, D. Vztahy, sex, rodina. Veľký rozvrat a cesta k obnove. Praha: Návrat domov, 2013. s. 266, ISBN 978-80-7255-304-4 HEIMAN, J.R. Long, J.S. Smith, S.N. FISHER, W. Sand, M.S. Rosen, R.C. Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2011, s. 40

HOUSTON, N. 1981. Romanticism and eroticism among Black and White college students. Adolescence 16

CHALMERS, H. 2018. Is monogamy morally permissible? 2018. DOI 10.1007/s10790-018-9663-8, https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAIMM-2

MCMURTY J., “Monogamy: A Critique,” The Monist, Vol. 56, No. 4, 1972: 587-599; and Hallie Liberto, "The Problem with Sexual Promises," Ethics 127, no. 2 (January 2017) MACKEEVER, N. 2017. ‘Is the Requirement of Sexual Exclusivity Inconsistent with Romantic Love?’ The Journal of Applied Philosophy 34(3), s. 353–369.

MOŽNÝ, I. Moderní rodina - mýty a skutečnosti. Brno: Blok, 1990. s. 184, ISBN 80-7029-018-8

LEWINSOHN, R. Svetové dejiny sexuality. Praha: Naše vojsko, 1992. s. 304

MARKOVÁ, D. 2007. Predmanželská sexualita v kontextoch sexuálnej diverzity a variability. Bratislava: Regent, 2007, 246 p. ISBN 978-80-88904-59-5.

MARKOVÁ, D. 2009. Sexualita, normy a sexuálne deviácie. In: ONDREJKOVIČ, P. a kol. Sociálna patológia. Bratislava: VEDA, 2009, p. 240-264. ISBN 978-80-224-1074-8.

MARKOVÁ, D. 2012. O sexualite, sexuálnej morálke a súčasných partnerských vzťahoch. Nitra: Garmond, 2012, 262 p. ISBN 978-80-89148-76-9.

RITCHIE, A., & BARKER, M. 2006. “There aren’t words for what wedo or how we feel so we have to make them up”: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9 (5), 584-601.

RYAN, Ch., JETHÁ, C. Na počiatku bol sex. Šamorín: Zelený kocúr, 2014. s. 444. ISBN 978-80-89761-00-5

SKUPNIK, J. Antropologie příbuzenství, 2010. Praha: Sociologické nakladateľstvo (SLON), 2010. s. 402. ISBN 978-80-7419-019-3

SPRECHER, S. Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. J. Sex. Res. 2002, 39, 190–196.

UZEL, R. Intimní slasti a strasti. Praha: Ikar 2009. 288 s. ISBN 978-80-249-1247-9, str.256. UZEL, R. Nevěra a co s ní. Praha: Petrklíč 2010. 159s. ISBN 978-80-7229-241-7, str. 62. 20

WASSERSTROM, R. 1998. ‘Is Adultery Immoral?’ in R. B. Baker, F. A. Elliston and K. J. Winninger (eds) Philosophy and Sex. New York: Prometheus Books, s. 139–150.

White, G.L., Mullen, P.E. 2005. Žárlivost – teorie, výzkum a klinická strategie. Praha: Triton. s. 424. ISBN 80-7254-708-9

YORK, K., 2019. Why monogamy is morally permissible: Defense of some common justifications for monogamy. Springer Nature B.V. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-019-09727-z