The column certainly answers the question of whether monogamy is declining. But it doesn’t address the question of whether it’s obsolete.
Is monogamy merely a relic of an ancient moral code that no longer holds any relevance for our modern lives? Or is there sufficient social/emotional/practical value to monogamy to continue to promote it as the ideal?
Powers &8^]
Statement 1: I am married.
Statement 2: Everything I do is out of date and obsolete.
Conclusion: Monogamy is obsolete
That was easy.
Remind me of Jacky Mason quote:
From the column:
This would be true if these numbers were for first marriages only, and I don’t believe they are. Marriages between spouses who have been married previously should really not be included since they skew the tally if the question is “lifetime monogamy”. Liz Taylor, for example, has a personal failed-marriage rate of 7/8 (Mike Todd technically left her a widow). If her marriages/divorces were included in the 53%, removing at least the 6 after her first husband (Conrad Hilton) would reduce that rate for all the others, including first-time marriages.
Without any other data, the increase from 49% to 53% could simply mean that divorcees have become less gunshy–err, remarry more frequently–than before.
I don’t know the answer but “for every 6.8 marriages there were 3.6 divorces — a 53 percent rate” seems to be missing some data. For each of those new marriages, how many marriages existed at the beginning of the year and still existed at the end of the year (about 60 million total couples according to one google search).
The average length of marriage at termination (either thru divorce or death) should be factored in shouldn’t it?
On the singles statistic: I have far more unmarried friends and relatives in long-term stable single relationships, with children, joint property, etc., then I imagine was acceptable 20 years ago. It might not be monogamy so much as marriage that’s on its way out…
Uh, no… stand up comedy routines and rock music lyrics aren’t “real”. If you’re lucky enough to find a truly compatible partner with all the right qualities, then you’re emphatically NOT going to want to risk losing it all over some random skank.
IMHO, a lot of the anti-monogamy chatter comes from people who dislike their partner but aren’t brave enough to just break it off in an upfront way.
I smell a faint waft of rationalization in the air. Or was that me farting? It’s hard to tell when my nose is all stuffred up.
The statistic is taken from the US Gov’s National Vital Statistics System. I haven’t looked into the detailed methodology, but the final statistic is based on over 2 million marriages per year, and around 800,000 divorces ditto. Hard to believe that the number of previously-married would be significant.
Also. MODERATOR ACTION: Since there were two threads on the column, I’ve merged them.
Haha!
I was asked, as The Good Wife, not to let fame go to my head when I was alerted today - via email - that my question was chosen for today’s question. Please. I’m actually more embarrassed.
My motivation for asking had a lot to do with my being 5 years into my 3rd marriage…thus validating the conclusion in Cecil’s answer anyway. Kudos to Cecil.
I will still protest that tired old divorce statistic because all those folks that got divorced in any given year most certainly did not get married that same year, too. I can’t imagine how this statistic really needs to be determined, especially since all the stable co-habitation pairings now-a-days are not factored in. It should be.
It bugs me when the likes of Psychology Today seem to give shameless permission for humans to screw around since it’s apparently nature’s shameless way. Even being on my 3rd marriage - I’d still like to think “we” can be committed as the social structure tells us we ought to.
3rd marriage? I’m about to go 30 years on my first marriage. It takes dedication, hard work, and (most important) laziness.
Divorce? I’ll have to get a lawyer, and then find a new place to move in, and then we have to work out all the various agreements, who gets the dishes, etc. Man, that’s a lot of work. Might as well just stay together at this rate.
Psychology Today doesn’t even make a good fish wrapper. The ink comes off on the fish, and then you’re just stuck reading the fish.
Is Monogamy obsolete?
Is Monogamy obsolete ?!
WIM-WAM!
Why, the finest desk I’ve ever seen was made from hand-carved monogamy!
Yes, Groucho is a great guy to steal jokes from. 
Seems to me that this is a case of
“The wheel turns fast, therefore the wheel will turn
faster forever.”
—Lewis
Sex at Dawn puts forth the hypothesis that a long, long time ago (like 200,000 years) it took a village to make a baby. Others say the authors are full of prunes. The debate rages on.
The problem is that people who divorce are more likely to divorce again. Just like if you took the number of all objects stolen and divided it by the number of people in the country and concluded that X% of Americans are thieves.
So what? We don’t care how many people are divorcees, so counting multi-divorcees twice (or seven times in certain cases) doesn’t matter. We’re comparing the number of divorces to the number of marriages, and since each divorce requires one and only one marriage, the comparison is valid.
Powers &8^]
My wife of 28 years informs me that without question, monogamy is NOT obsolete.
Noted.
Monogamy isn’t important to me, but what’s important to my wife is important to me.
No we’re answering the question of how many have abandoned traditional monogamy, marriage for life, in favor of so called serial monogamy, marriage until you get bored. People who end marriages for boredom tend to bore easily and it has been shown that if you divorce once you are much more likely to divorce again skewing the statistics to the idea that divorce is more common among the entire population than it is. Personally I believe that society is best served by the traditional kind and that societies that abandon traditional marriage will fall to those who don’t.
The Master speaks, on “half of all marriages end in divorce”.
“On the singles statistic: I have far more unmarried friends and relatives in long-term stable single relationships, with children, joint property, etc., then I imagine was acceptable 20 years ago. It might not be monogamy so much as marriage that’s on its way out.” [SQUIFOOD]
I think Squidfood has put his/her finger on it.
Making “being married” part of the definition of “monogamy” obscures the existence of long-term stable single relationships.
I suspect that is a significant factor in Cecil’s statement “In 1968 the number of unmarried U.S. adults (including those widowed, divorced, AND NEVER LEGALLY MARRIED) was just 28 percent. As of 2010, it was 49 percent.”
I say “I suspect” because I’ve never seen any figures for the number of unmarried people in stable long term relationships. I don’t know if stats are collected for that. I shouldn’t think so. (Maybe Cecil can advise us.)
Stats are useful tools for what they tell you, but they don’t necessarily tell you the answer to the question you have.
For instance, looking at divorce rates you can compare the number of divorces per year vs the number of marriages per year and get some comparison, but that doesn’t necessarily tell you a statistic about monogamy.
As mentioned, many marriages fail at being monogamous, which is often part of what leads to the divorce. Furthermore, the stigma of not being married has dropped significantly, leading to more couples entering long term stable romantic relationships but not getting married. And the effect of people who marry and divorce numerous times vs the number of people with one lifetime marriage and no divorces, or two marriages due to death of a first spouse.
And then there are gay couples, where marriage has only recently become an option, and is not a universally available one. Where do homosexual relationships fit into the question of “monogamy”?
It is fair to say that humans (as opposed to other apes like chimpanzees) are prone to form long term pair bonds. It is also fair to point out that the social structures and pressures that surround marriage do not always maintain sexual/romantic restriction one partner. And I’m not really talking about open marriages or poly arrangements, but good old-fashioned cheating. (Or not so good - YMMV.)
Another observation is that human pair-bond drives may not be lifelong, but have a lifespan. I have seen one estimate of 7 years. That would account for the male getting coupled long enough to help through the years of infancy but then fade as the children become more self-sufficient. In a hunter-gatherer society, 7 year olds would be able to contribute at some level and not be fully dependent upon their parents. And human societies as tribal groups would provide communal parenting options. I know, that has the obvious flaw that families aren’t limited to one child or one child every 7 years, so there’s a weakness in that argument.
What does any of this have to say about monogamy? That it never was as solid as we humans made it out to be? That the definition of monogamy itself has to be stretched to serial monogamy for it to have relevance?
And separately, the question can be asked if marriage is still useful or obsolete, or if the concept of marriage should be opened to include wider arrangements to remain relevant for the future.