# Monogamy is for idiots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 12, 2010, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375 "2010-07-12T09:16:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/21 "2010-07-12T14:18:53Z")
Why the hate on monogamy? If you don’t like it, don’t do it. No one’s making you. Shag whoever you want already, and get over yourself. You’re not the first guy to come to this decision, and won’t be the last. It’s not like the women of the world could be arsed about your choice. If we all wish you happy shagging will that get you to move on to other topics? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/22 "2010-07-12T14:23:05Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > We’ll just add this to the rapidly-growing list of things **DragonAsh** is incapable of having a rational debate about. To have a debate, you have to have, you know, some semblance of an argument, a set of logical, reasonable statements that sort your support your view. No one in the other thread even attempted to respond to my fairly basic queries: Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that a guy is lucky enough to find multiple women willing to continue a long-term relationship with you. Now suppose two or more women get pregnant at the same time. Are all the women suddenly happy to have only a part-time dad? What if you all start getting older, and two or more women depend on you for emotional or financial support? Would you be available to both? Would you be financially capable of helping both and raising children with multiple women? Are you prepared to be there for all the women, equally, whenever they need you to be there? What about families? Most relationships involve more than just the other person - they have famiiles and friends as well. Would you be ready/able to help out with family/friend issues for multiple partners? Real relationships means commitment - commitment to being there for the person when they need yo uto be there, not just when it’s convenient for you. If someone is going to post looking for sympathy for a breakup while bragging about how they’re trolling online dating sites and strip clubs looking for cheap sex thrills, while at the same time calling my monogamous lifestyle the dishonest approach to relationships, I reserve the right to mock them fully for it. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/23 "2010-07-12T14:23:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Someone clearly needs a hug. Or maybe a cuddle. Or maybe a cudgel. Uh oh. Is it me? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/24 "2010-07-12T14:24:05Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Why the hate on monogamy? If you don’t like it, don’t do it. No one’s making you. That whooshing sound you hear… ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/25 "2010-07-12T14:25:44Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Uh oh. Is it me? Hands jsgoddess a cuttlefish. Er, it may not be what you were expecting, so I de-beaked it in case you wanted to cuddle. Oh, and it’s similar enough to a trout to use as a cudgel. Enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/26 "2010-07-12T14:43:54Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > To have a debate, you have to have, you know, some semblance of an argument, a set of logical, reasonable statements that sort your support your view. > > No one in the other thread even attempted to respond to my fairly basic queries: Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that a guy is lucky enough to find multiple women willing to continue a long-term relationship with you. Now suppose two or more women get pregnant at the same time. Are all the women suddenly happy to have only a part-time dad? What if you all start getting older, and two or more women depend on you for emotional or financial support? Would you be available to both? Would you be financially capable of helping both and raising children with multiple women? Are you prepared to be there for all the women, equally, whenever they need you to be there? What about families? Most relationships involve more than just the other person - they have famiiles and friends as well. Would you be ready/able to help out with family/friend issues for multiple partners? > > Real relationships means commitment - commitment to being there for the person when they need yo uto be there, not just when it’s convenient for you. > > If someone is going to post looking for sympathy for a breakup while bragging about how they’re trolling online dating sites and strip clubs looking for cheap sex thrills, while at the same time calling my monogamous lifestyle the dishonest approach to relationships, I reserve the right to mock them fully for it. If we’re talking polyamory rather than just sleeping around, you’re not just looking at one guy trying to be a full-time partner to multiple women. You’re talking about a family of (at least) three people, which is more hands and more hearts than a couple. Typically, a poly man doesn’t have two or more separate families. And also typically, if there are outside relationships, great care is taken not to produce a child. I will admit that I’m coming at it from a different perspective than typicaly heterosexual (or bisexual) polyamory, since I’m gay. I don’t and never will have kids to worry about unless I specifically choose to raise them. So I don’t necessarily know how straight poly/open relationships work on a first-hand basis. I don’t demand that you have sympathy for **AHunter3** , but I also don’t place 100% of the blame for the relationship failing on him, any more than I place the whole blame for a relationship between a gay man trying to be straight and a straight woman who agreed to the whole doomed thing on the man. The women in both cases had a choice. The adult thing to do if they didn’t feel that it would work is to walk away from it at the beginning, when the situation was laid out to them. **AHunter3** ’s ex didn’t have to agree to go through with it. Removing her agency in this is not only to make **AHunter3** out to be some kind of slimy predator, it makes her into a helpless victim, which she isn’t and wasn’t. She is an adult human being, capable of making (sometimes wrong) decisions for her own life. Nobody’s saying that poly/open is paradise and you’re all fools for not jumping into the pool. But by the same token, it would be nice if people didn’t characterize all poly/open relationships as promiscuous, destructive and predatory. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/27 "2010-07-12T15:21:28Z")
[QUOTE=Dragonash] That whooshing sound you hear… [/QUOTE] So, you’re really just wanting to slag on polygamous arrangements? (Suggest revision of OP before submission for grade.) Why so coy? Just say so. Still, I stand by, “If you don’t like it, don’t do it.” How the hell does it impact you if other people find it workable? Or are you one of those convinced that ‘gay’ marriage is somehow going to diminish your hetro marriage? Do enjoy being judgmental of something you don’t understand though, after all, that always goes well. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/28 "2010-07-12T15:26:16Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > If we’re talking polyamory rather than just sleeping around **Jayjay** , I understand the points you’re trying to make. The problem is, they don’t really strike home for me. I mean, I don’t see any fundamental difference between polyamory and just sleeping around. In \*\*AHunter3’s \*\*case, it wasn’t like he was promoting an extended (three or more-person) family relationship with his partner. It was, ‘I can and probably will have other sex partners while we’re in a relationship’. If we didn’t apply the polyamory label, would anyone really see a fundamental difference between that stance, and the frat guy stringing girls along trying to get as much tail as he could without getting tied down to anything? The only difference is one says up-front ‘I’m going to sleep around, you’ll have to accept the consequences’. Yes, I agree that the women that get into relationships with poly men are mostly likely adults perfectly capable of making their own choices. I’m sure there are women that are perfectly fine with it. I’m even sure there are probably rare groups of people that make it work for them (although I personally think that the ‘one big happy family’ scenario is even less likely than ‘happy multiple but separate families’). But on the whole, polyamory to me looks like the lazy, immature, and emotionally empty way through relationships. And most of the time, it’s going to be the women that get left holding the wrong end of a dirty stick. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/29 "2010-07-12T15:28:14Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Or are you one of those convinced that ‘gay’ marriage is somehow going to diminish your hetro marriage? What the hell does gay marriage have to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/30 "2010-07-12T15:31:30Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The only difference is one says up-front ‘I’m going to sleep around, you’ll have to accept the consequences’. Well, as I understand it true polyamory isn’t just a bunch of random one-night stands, it just means you love more than one person. That aside…yeah, what I quoted basically is what makes it okay. In relationships, consensus makes anything okay (aside from what’s actually illegal, of course). ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/31 "2010-07-12T15:35:34Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > **Jayjay** , I understand the points you’re trying to make. The problem is, they don’t really strike home for me. I mean, I don’t see any fundamental difference between polyamory and just sleeping around. In \*\*AHunter3’s \*\*case, it wasn’t like he was promoting an extended (three or more-person) family relationship with his partner. It was, ‘I can and probably will have other sex partners while we’re in a relationship’. Yes. It’s different from poly, I agree. I just don’t see where it’s wrong if it’s mutually consensual. > [@](#): > > If we didn’t apply the polyamory label, would anyone really see a fundamental difference between that stance, and the frat guy stringing girls along trying to get as much tail as he could without getting tied down to anything? The only difference is one says up-front ‘I’m going to sleep around, you’ll have to accept the consequences’. Which makes things legit, in my mind. There is a difference between stringing someone along to get them to put out, and a relationship where the primary emotional commitment is to one person but is not sexually exclusive. Sex is not love. Love is not sex. And a love relationship that’s sexually open is absolutely legit if it’s mutually consensual. > [@](#): > > Yes, I agree that the women that get into relationships with poly men are mostly likely adults perfectly capable of making their own choices. I’m sure there are women that are perfectly fine with it. I’m even sure there are probably rare groups of people that make it work for them (although I personally think that the ‘one big happy family’ scenario is even less likely than ‘happy multiple but separate families’). > > But on the whole, polyamory to me looks like the lazy, immature, and emotionally empty way through relationships. And I seriously doubt that any of those people really give a damn what your opinion of them is, beyond a wish to defend themselves from being labeled so negatively for having a different relationship style, which is mutually consensual. **IMO** , monogamy isn’t naturally universal for humanity. It may be for some, but experience and simply observing show that it’s definitely not a trait that the whole species holds. It’s become dominant for cultural reasons, reinforced by religious attitudes. I don’t begrudge anyone an attachment to monogamy, personally, regardless of my attitudes toward it. But if you don’t see how you slander (or possibly libel, since this is “printed”) non-monogamous people with stuff like that last paragraph, you’re missing something. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/32 "2010-07-12T15:48:21Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > **Jayjay** , I understand the points you’re trying to make. The problem is, they don’t really strike home for me. I mean, I don’t see any fundamental difference between polyamory and just sleeping around. In \*\*AHunter3’s \*\*case, it wasn’t like he was promoting an extended (three or more-person) family relationship with his partner. It was, ‘I can and probably will have other sex partners while we’re in a relationship’. > > If we didn’t apply the polyamory label, would anyone really see a fundamental difference between that stance, and the frat guy stringing girls along trying to get as much tail as he could without getting tied down to anything? The only difference is one says up-front ‘I’m going to sleep around, you’ll have to accept the consequences’. Dude, that’s not what he said. He said that he didn’t want a monogamous relationship, she told him that was fine, but that she did want one, and if he went outside the relationship she’d end the relationship. And so, during the relationship he never went outside the relationship because he valued it higher than sleeping around. How exactly is that different than every other monogamous relationship? Because I guarantee that you want to sleep with people other than your wife, it’s just that you feel the consequences are unacceptable. The only difference is that he didn’t try to trick her into thinking he was naturally monogamous. And there’s a difference between “stringing girls along” and sleeping with lots of girls. You think the only way to get a woman to have sex with you is to promise her an exclusive sexual relationship? Nobody is obligated to be monogamous, likewise, nobody is obligated to stay with a non-monogamous partner. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/33 "2010-07-12T16:01:19Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Uh oh. Is it me? It is you, but we’re not going to tell you which one you’re getting. “Surprise buttsecks” is also on the table. 🙂 **DragonAsh** , I kinda get where you’re coming from, but being harshly critical of how other people live their lives seems kind of fruitless to me. On the other hand, it might make you feel better to know that from what I’ve seen of polyamoury (is that the right word? polygamy doesn’t sound right) on the Dope, it almost never works out as the people involved hope it will. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/34 "2010-07-12T16:04:02Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > polyamoury (is that the right word? polygamy doesn’t sound right) Polyamory = loving multiple people. Polygamy = marrying multiple people. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/35 "2010-07-12T16:08:46Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Yes. It’s different from poly, I agree. I just don’t see where it’s wrong if it’s mutually consensual. > > \ > > And a love relationship that’s sexually open is absolutely legit if it’s mutually consensual. > > \ > > beyond a wish to defend themselves from being labeled so negatively for having a different relationship style, which is mutually consensual. That’s my whole point: at the end of the day, I don’t think it is truly mutually consensual the entire time. Most of the time, I think you end up with a situation like the other thread: The woman ends up reluctantly accepting the man’s terms for the relationship, because of an emotional investment already made. Note that in the thread, it looks very much like \*\*AHunter3 \*\*only told \*\*Herself \*\*of his views on relationships _after_ they were in a deep relationship, which is a pretty scumbaggy thing to do is you ask me. And **Lemur866** , there is a HUGE difference between AHunter3’s case and a monogamous relationship. In one relationship, both parties go in believing they share the same values. In the other, one party is constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/36 "2010-07-12T16:12:17Z")
So is your beef with polyamorists or with **AHunter**? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/37 "2010-07-12T16:19:27Z")
Polyamorists in general, as defined by AHunter’s actions in the aforementioned thread. Unless a poly is going to show up and say that AHunter isn’t promoting the true poly lifestyle. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/38 "2010-07-12T16:32:36Z")
You might as well start a thread about how stupid monogamy is given the actions of a wife beater. His actions aren’t the actions of a polyamorist per se, they’re the actions of a douche bag. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/39 "2010-07-12T16:34:17Z")
When a wife beater starts trying to legitimize it by giving his lifestyle a name, I’ll start that thread. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375/40 "2010-07-12T16:48:52Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > That’s my whole point: at the end of the day, I don’t think it is truly mutually consensual the entire time. Most of the time, I think you end up with a situation like the other thread: The woman ends up reluctantly accepting the man’s terms for the relationship, because of an emotional investment already made. This is where you’re wrong. Most of the time, speaking as a polyamorous guy, I am up front about being poly prior to the first date (that and my wedding ring). Hell, I probably get FEWER one-night-stands because the ring draws people looking for “just tonight” with someone who has an incentive to be discreet which to me is nothing I want to be involved in. As for “women being reluctant/victimized” I invite you to do a cursory web search–I find there are plenty of women who are out there looking for a polyamory-acceptable relationship. Now granted, I also find there are a lot of men out there who are claiming to be polyamorous when they are really just looking for a reason to sleep around–polyamory implies commitment to the rules of the relationship(s) and looking for more than just a lay. > [@](#): > > Note that in the thread, it looks very much like \*\*AHunter3 \*\*only told \*\*Herself \*\*of his views on relationships _after_ they were in a deep relationship, which is a pretty scumbaggy thing to do is you ask me. I wouldn’t disagree–poly is something that needs to be disclosed relatively early in a relationship, in my opinion. > [@](#): > > And **Lemur866** , there is a HUGE difference between AHunter3’s case and a monogamous relationship. In one relationship, both parties go in believing they share the same values. In the other, one party is constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop. If you’ve never felt like you’re constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop in a relationship of any type, you’ve got more self-esteem than most. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monogamy-is-for-idiots/546375.md?page=3)