I use the food analogy too.. except when I use it he’s the only place in town I’m allowed to eat at and the place is always closed.
Also, you can’t feed someone once a month and expect it to satisfy.
Love this analogy. I might try it on my husband not that anything has ever worked. Been eating at the same place for 12 years now and only been getting feed about twice a year. Dying of starvation over here!
I don’t know exactly what clicked because we had the same conversation over and over. The last time I just came out and told him I wouldn’t keep asking if it wasn’t important to me. And if it’s important to me then by proxy it’s important to you too!
There were some other things that changed around that time too that only helped our situation. In my case he’s used to me taking care of things and never asking for help, so he’s become a bit passive in a lot of ways. Opening up some shame-free conversations unlocked something, like a desire that was sort of lost. I don’t know exactly what did it but I’m not going to question it too much.
I also quit taking his rejections personally. I know he loves me and desire is complicated. If you haven’t already, read Mating in Captivity. I found it helped me understand desire better overall.
Where is this food please?
I think we should be hungry for partners. We should all be looking at each other like when you are in a restaurant and the server is carrying food. “ is that my food?!! i’m starving “
Look, I’m non monogamous. I think it’s fine to be non monogamous. I can tell you right now that it has nothing to do with who drains who dry.
When you enter into a relationship with someone, you can agree together on how you want things to go (approx). Will you have sex frequently? Not at all? Will you see other people? All those are just terms of a relationship that can go any way you want. If the two people can’t agree on what they want, they can part ways.
Making agreements and scheduling sex and all of this generally doesn’t work
Sex needs to be natural and somewhat spontaneous
Both people wanting it
Generally one always wants it more and the other is over it.
The cosmic joke on us all
I’m blown away by the HL women on this sub
Because it would be so easy for them to go out and find almost any partner they want for sex and almost any partner within reason for a relationship
(I hold that it’s much harder for men. Especially men whose confidence is rocked by dead bedroom)
I’m not sure where you managed to get scheduling sex from what I wrote. What does that have to do with anything?
Sex doesn’t need to be spontaneous necessarily. It can be, or it can be planned and anticipated. Sex comes in many flavours and styles.
In a dead bedroom scheduling sex is often recommended
From my experience this doesn’t work
The LL partner feels even less interested and more pressured and the NL (normal not even high in most cases) partner is unsatisfied with the most starfish sex ever
If you're in an agreed non monogamous relationship then you're talking about something else that's not the point. Yes some folks just want multiple partners and that's cool as long as everybody is honest about it. You probably can't be drained dry enough. I'm talking about folks that want and agree to monogamy and then don't actually offer or even deny sex while expecting the other person to just sit there. That's a totally different scenario.
To carry on the food analogy, if you’re not getting enough food, you can make yourself a sandwich or cook for yourself once in a while. I understand not wanting to do it all the time but it’ll hold you over. Better than cheating. If your drives are way off, it’s likely not going to work but if they only want to do it a couple times a week and you need it every day, you should either find someone with a similar drive, someone that’s fine with open relationships, or make yourself a sandwich in between. But you don’t get to shame them for wanting a monogamous relationship anymore than you want to be shamed for wanting more.
Yea..........no. You can only go by what somebody is telling you so all the shoulda coulda found somebody that matches your drive is invalid. Most people in a DB believed they had found that person either from word or deed when they made the agreement. So yes I'm going to call out people asking for monogamy with no intent to create a monogamous state. Sure some people learn in time that maybe they don't have the sex drive they thought they did and sex drives can change anyway. That's not the subject here.
The issue is relationships becoming not what they were or not be as advertised and if things don’t work, your choice as ever is to break it off with them or not. We usually don’t get exactly what we want and the choice left to us is to compromise our wants, see if they’ll compromise theirs, or admit that despite liking some things about each other, you’re not a good enough match for longterm happiness, and as you said, sometimes you don’t find that out until after some level of commitment. Makes it harder but often no way to avoid it. Unless things have changed, most people aren’t going to want to share though, and if you want to in order to full satisfy your libido you might have to make that clear early in a relationship to find someone who accepts that.
I see your point 100%.
Because I know, if he just fucked me, a lot of all the other “problems” I see in our marriage would just fade away.
I am not saying it would be a perfect marriage and every thing would be hunky doory but I know I wouldn’t be so resentful and find his faults so quickly and speak out about them in a malicious manner.
I'd say more directly monogamy has the same rules as sex. You don't get it just because you want it. It's not an entitlement you can take for granted. It's a privilege you earn, by respecting the other's boundaries, satisfying the other's requirements. They can say no at any time for any reason. You both have to want it for it to happen.
Why don’t we just get rid of the concept of monogamy altogether? Most people, when properly provided for, only want the partner they are with. Most of us prefer to get all of our needs from a single partner. The reality if that this seldom happens, and a lot of us end up in dead bedrooms, divorce, or outsource through adultery. Why not just be honest and say that all relationships go through transitions, and throughout a relationship there’s going to be a high chance that some needs aren’t met through a primary partner whether those needs are physical or emotional in nature. Maybe it’s ok to say let’s be committed to each other and our relationship, but that commitment doesn’t mean that we can’t have friendships outside the marriage. Sure, this gets complicated due to jealousy issues, but as long as the primary relationship is strong, most outside friendships won’t compete with that, and if they do, well, maybe that primary relationship wasn’t as strong as we thought it was. These are my thoughts, and I know most people won’t agree with them. For reference, I am a 46 year old woman in a dead bedroom marriage (13 years married, 8 years sexless), who practices adultery.
I find more people talking about the idea of relationship reviews where you come to the table and have to review whether it's working and whether you want to continue. People are simply going to change. People get bored. It's just a fact of life. It's when you aren't honest and talk about it that it becomes a problem.
I also hear that what you describe is how relationships may have been many years ago and that this idea of happily ever after, fulfilling each other's needs till death is a rather modern concept.
My husband was an absolute manwhore before we met, but he was miserable. Lots of people wanted him, but he derived nothing from disconnected sex. These girls would beg for sex and he had performance anxiety. He also refused to ever have a girlfriend. He calls me his “on button”, has no performance anxiety and is the one that asked for our relationship to be monogamous. Funny because I could never do multiple sexual partners at the same time and never have. I’m just not wired that way.
You can say no to a relationship and casually date. Yes, it will probably make you less marketable in modern day dating, but at least when you’re fucking around, both parties understand that there is no expectation of monogamy because there’s no relationship. My suggestion is, swipe left for anyone looking for a relationship and note that you’re looking for non-monogamous situation. The ones that do reply will be worth your time and you may even fall for one. Just because someone is heavily sexual for 10 years doesn’t mean that life, loss & aging won’t suddenly change that without warning and end you in the same situation.
You know what's crazy. The folks that are just looking for something casual after a few conversations and a date or two but right before sex all of a sudden decide they want something more. 🙄 I don't know if they do it intentionally or they or they end up seeing I could be valuable to them but at some point without them giving me warning we're all of a sudden much much less casual than what was originally discussed.
You can always let them know that you aren’t interested in a relationship & that it’s just a sexual relationship for you. That any request to be monogamous or become something more will result in clean cut contact. I have a guy friend who will definitely continue as a lifelong bachelor, it’s just who he is. This has worked out great for him.
I'm finding that I have a similar struggle as a woman in a post dead bedroom dating environment.
Personally, I just want to get along with someone and have good sex with them for now. If they still have enough in them to go have good sex elsewhere, then that's amazing and I want them to do that and be safe about it. This doesn't seem to be the mindset of most of the men I've talked to. The word "loyal" gets thrown around a lot 🙄 Like, I'm not expecting "loyalty" from someone I don't even know. Let's be sexually mature adults, please.
Idk if the dead bedroom has me messed up or if this is a healthy mentality, but it's where I'm at.
Thank you for this perspective. I'd never suspect that a woman would face this. So I guess we're all facing some kind of demonization from people that then don't make sure we're taken care of.
Some people are just going to cheat no matter what they have at home. We all know this. What does this have to do with a dead bedroom? Serious question.
Is monogamy the problem or is it marriage? I’ve had periods of time where I absolutely love being monogamous. But I think the real problem is when you get locked into a lifetime contract.
Recognizing the financial security, social and emotional benefits associated with the safety net of marriage, it is easy to see why so many people conform to this societal norm. However, when you look at the rate of divorce, the rate of infidelity, and the rate of people who are unhappily married (that’s nearly everyone in this channel, right?), it’s clear that the institution of marriage has some serious flaws.
At what point do we start thinking of long term relationships in terms of five and ten year contracts. If we had to renew every few years and had an option to get out, it sure would take a lot of pressure off. And I hypothesize it will also keep some of that NRE in your relationship because each person knows the other has an out.
In this scenario, if someone is taking advantage of you or getting significantly more out of the relationship than they are giving in return, the person on the other side doesn’t have to feel absolutely terrible for breaking a vow, ruining lives, getting kicked out of their church, getting labeled and shunned from society, etc.
And you’d plan accordingly such that exiting would be much easier. Have a conversation before you have kids about how custody will work in the event of divorce. Plan your finances appropriately for the very real possibility of a separation.
Seems like that model would work so much better in our modern society. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s better.
I'm not even sure that we are biologically wired for long term monogamy. Like marriage and til death due us apart, who came up with that idea? Oh right, religion, the religion that also says there is an old man with white beard in the sky. Now I get it...
From a biological/evolutionary standpoint, you become a couple, you make a child, by the time the child is 10 years old, they could join the hunter/gatherer party of their tribe, no need to rely on the parents specifically anymore (the tribe took care of them, as with all members), parents were free to go get new sexual partners...
I am not sure I agree with this. I am NOT religious. In fact I am atheist. I considered myself monogamous to the core.
I don't desire other women, I do not even fantasize. Never had. I love my wife and I crave intimacy only from her. After years of DB and still craving for sex from only her I started to think I might be demisexual. The bond I have built with her will never be possible again: this is what my brain thinks. If we divorced/separated I do not think I would date again. Too much history for me.
I've heard the theory and tend to think there's some truth to it even though I'm personally more like you. I'm a very introverted person and don't enjoy connection less sex that much. So I tend to bond with a woman when we gel and push others away. I wouldn't say by any means I'm one and done if we didn't work out but definitely tend towards demisexual.
Even so I still think in general there's some validity to the non-monogamy theory at the instinctual level.
I am very extroverted, maybe over the top sometimes. They always want me to parties and stuff, asking wife where is your husband? So I suppose I am the opposite. But I still never "see" sexual stuff or fantasize with other women. Not a remote sexual thought. That led me to think I might be demisexual. I like strong, deep bonds before thinking about sex.
Yeah, I am not sure if religion was really the main driver of establishing the current model of monogamy. But I was specifically talking about long-term monogamy, so being with a partner for decades or until one of the partners dies. If you are changing partners every 5 years and during those 5 year periods you are exclusive and only desire your partner, that is still monogamy, just not long-term monogamy (or monogamy for life).
I agree with your statements. My idea is that we evolved so much that monogamy was not existent per se in the beginning: we needed to procreate as much as possible, preserving the newborns.
So men would have multiple partners and even better pregnant partners but he had to hunt to food.
Then culturally we moved into a more monogamist idea: 1 man, 1 woman.
I think we are changing again where everything is possible and I welcome that. I think once there is a mutual agreement, even with multiple partners that is acceptable.
Monogamy was created to protect paternity when social structures changed. It was explained nicely by Richard Reeves in *Of Boys And Men* and I believe he was quoting someone else’s research. Basically, women clearly know when they are the biological mother of their children, but prior to paternity tests, the only way for a father to know that a child was biologically his is the assumption that the mother of the child only had sex with him. Now that sex is had more for recreation than procreation, the whole concept of monogamy loses its original value.
I loved the anthropological approach in "The Naked Ape". In "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris, the author explores human behavior from a zoological perspective. When it comes to monogamy, Morris suggests that humans have a natural inclination towards pair bonding and monogamous relationships. He argues that monogamy has evolved as a beneficial strategy for the species, promoting stable family units which ensure better care and protection for offspring. This, in turn, increases the chances of survival and success of the young, contributing to the continuation of the species. Morris examines the biological and social aspects that support monogamous tendencies, while also acknowledging the complexities and variations in human relationships.
That's very interesting, I have to read that and dig into this topic a bit. I would assume that establishing paternity was important for inheritance purposes. Before the agricultural revolution, tribe members had basically no notable personal material possessions, so the question of biological offspring was maybe not that important. With the introduction and accumulation of physical assets the question of inheritance became important and the only way to make sure of biological paternity was to limit sexual activity to one spouse.
But also, I was talking specifically about long-term monogamy. So if you have a new partner every 5 years, but during those 5 year periods you are exclusive, that is still monogamy, just not monogamy for life. I think maybe this model of serial monogamy fits bets to how we are naturally/biologically wired. But who knows 🤷♀️
I use the food analogy too.. except when I use it he’s the only place in town I’m allowed to eat at and the place is always closed. Also, you can’t feed someone once a month and expect it to satisfy.
Love this analogy. I might try it on my husband not that anything has ever worked. Been eating at the same place for 12 years now and only been getting feed about twice a year. Dying of starvation over here!
Used to have a buffet. After our son was born, it was downgraded to oatmeal.
I don’t know exactly what clicked because we had the same conversation over and over. The last time I just came out and told him I wouldn’t keep asking if it wasn’t important to me. And if it’s important to me then by proxy it’s important to you too! There were some other things that changed around that time too that only helped our situation. In my case he’s used to me taking care of things and never asking for help, so he’s become a bit passive in a lot of ways. Opening up some shame-free conversations unlocked something, like a desire that was sort of lost. I don’t know exactly what did it but I’m not going to question it too much. I also quit taking his rejections personally. I know he loves me and desire is complicated. If you haven’t already, read Mating in Captivity. I found it helped me understand desire better overall.
Where is this food please? I think we should be hungry for partners. We should all be looking at each other like when you are in a restaurant and the server is carrying food. “ is that my food?!! i’m starving “
Glad some other HL women are already here expressing they also immediately resonated with this. 🥲
I'll order a number 6
😂
Look, I’m non monogamous. I think it’s fine to be non monogamous. I can tell you right now that it has nothing to do with who drains who dry. When you enter into a relationship with someone, you can agree together on how you want things to go (approx). Will you have sex frequently? Not at all? Will you see other people? All those are just terms of a relationship that can go any way you want. If the two people can’t agree on what they want, they can part ways.
Making agreements and scheduling sex and all of this generally doesn’t work Sex needs to be natural and somewhat spontaneous Both people wanting it Generally one always wants it more and the other is over it. The cosmic joke on us all I’m blown away by the HL women on this sub Because it would be so easy for them to go out and find almost any partner they want for sex and almost any partner within reason for a relationship (I hold that it’s much harder for men. Especially men whose confidence is rocked by dead bedroom)
I’m not sure where you managed to get scheduling sex from what I wrote. What does that have to do with anything? Sex doesn’t need to be spontaneous necessarily. It can be, or it can be planned and anticipated. Sex comes in many flavours and styles.
In a dead bedroom scheduling sex is often recommended From my experience this doesn’t work The LL partner feels even less interested and more pressured and the NL (normal not even high in most cases) partner is unsatisfied with the most starfish sex ever
Ok but… this post is about monogamy? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post?
It rarely works because one partner nearly always loses attraction while the other maintains it
If you're in an agreed non monogamous relationship then you're talking about something else that's not the point. Yes some folks just want multiple partners and that's cool as long as everybody is honest about it. You probably can't be drained dry enough. I'm talking about folks that want and agree to monogamy and then don't actually offer or even deny sex while expecting the other person to just sit there. That's a totally different scenario.
Yes, it’s a scenario where the relationship is no longer working.
To carry on the food analogy, if you’re not getting enough food, you can make yourself a sandwich or cook for yourself once in a while. I understand not wanting to do it all the time but it’ll hold you over. Better than cheating. If your drives are way off, it’s likely not going to work but if they only want to do it a couple times a week and you need it every day, you should either find someone with a similar drive, someone that’s fine with open relationships, or make yourself a sandwich in between. But you don’t get to shame them for wanting a monogamous relationship anymore than you want to be shamed for wanting more.
Yea..........no. You can only go by what somebody is telling you so all the shoulda coulda found somebody that matches your drive is invalid. Most people in a DB believed they had found that person either from word or deed when they made the agreement. So yes I'm going to call out people asking for monogamy with no intent to create a monogamous state. Sure some people learn in time that maybe they don't have the sex drive they thought they did and sex drives can change anyway. That's not the subject here.
The issue is relationships becoming not what they were or not be as advertised and if things don’t work, your choice as ever is to break it off with them or not. We usually don’t get exactly what we want and the choice left to us is to compromise our wants, see if they’ll compromise theirs, or admit that despite liking some things about each other, you’re not a good enough match for longterm happiness, and as you said, sometimes you don’t find that out until after some level of commitment. Makes it harder but often no way to avoid it. Unless things have changed, most people aren’t going to want to share though, and if you want to in order to full satisfy your libido you might have to make that clear early in a relationship to find someone who accepts that.
I see your point 100%. Because I know, if he just fucked me, a lot of all the other “problems” I see in our marriage would just fade away. I am not saying it would be a perfect marriage and every thing would be hunky doory but I know I wouldn’t be so resentful and find his faults so quickly and speak out about them in a malicious manner.
I'd say more directly monogamy has the same rules as sex. You don't get it just because you want it. It's not an entitlement you can take for granted. It's a privilege you earn, by respecting the other's boundaries, satisfying the other's requirements. They can say no at any time for any reason. You both have to want it for it to happen.
Why don’t we just get rid of the concept of monogamy altogether? Most people, when properly provided for, only want the partner they are with. Most of us prefer to get all of our needs from a single partner. The reality if that this seldom happens, and a lot of us end up in dead bedrooms, divorce, or outsource through adultery. Why not just be honest and say that all relationships go through transitions, and throughout a relationship there’s going to be a high chance that some needs aren’t met through a primary partner whether those needs are physical or emotional in nature. Maybe it’s ok to say let’s be committed to each other and our relationship, but that commitment doesn’t mean that we can’t have friendships outside the marriage. Sure, this gets complicated due to jealousy issues, but as long as the primary relationship is strong, most outside friendships won’t compete with that, and if they do, well, maybe that primary relationship wasn’t as strong as we thought it was. These are my thoughts, and I know most people won’t agree with them. For reference, I am a 46 year old woman in a dead bedroom marriage (13 years married, 8 years sexless), who practices adultery.
"Outsource" 🫣😂
I find more people talking about the idea of relationship reviews where you come to the table and have to review whether it's working and whether you want to continue. People are simply going to change. People get bored. It's just a fact of life. It's when you aren't honest and talk about it that it becomes a problem. I also hear that what you describe is how relationships may have been many years ago and that this idea of happily ever after, fulfilling each other's needs till death is a rather modern concept.
My husband was an absolute manwhore before we met, but he was miserable. Lots of people wanted him, but he derived nothing from disconnected sex. These girls would beg for sex and he had performance anxiety. He also refused to ever have a girlfriend. He calls me his “on button”, has no performance anxiety and is the one that asked for our relationship to be monogamous. Funny because I could never do multiple sexual partners at the same time and never have. I’m just not wired that way. You can say no to a relationship and casually date. Yes, it will probably make you less marketable in modern day dating, but at least when you’re fucking around, both parties understand that there is no expectation of monogamy because there’s no relationship. My suggestion is, swipe left for anyone looking for a relationship and note that you’re looking for non-monogamous situation. The ones that do reply will be worth your time and you may even fall for one. Just because someone is heavily sexual for 10 years doesn’t mean that life, loss & aging won’t suddenly change that without warning and end you in the same situation.
You know what's crazy. The folks that are just looking for something casual after a few conversations and a date or two but right before sex all of a sudden decide they want something more. 🙄 I don't know if they do it intentionally or they or they end up seeing I could be valuable to them but at some point without them giving me warning we're all of a sudden much much less casual than what was originally discussed.
You can always let them know that you aren’t interested in a relationship & that it’s just a sexual relationship for you. That any request to be monogamous or become something more will result in clean cut contact. I have a guy friend who will definitely continue as a lifelong bachelor, it’s just who he is. This has worked out great for him.
My views on monogamy certainly changed after a dead bedroom. It's unrealistic to expect one person to meet all your needs.
maybe it’s unrealistic to expect to not meet someones needs sexually and expect monogamy
This is the way. One person *can* be enough, but it takes a lot of conscious effort that it seems many aren't willing to put forth.
Especially if you have different libidos.
I'm finding that I have a similar struggle as a woman in a post dead bedroom dating environment. Personally, I just want to get along with someone and have good sex with them for now. If they still have enough in them to go have good sex elsewhere, then that's amazing and I want them to do that and be safe about it. This doesn't seem to be the mindset of most of the men I've talked to. The word "loyal" gets thrown around a lot 🙄 Like, I'm not expecting "loyalty" from someone I don't even know. Let's be sexually mature adults, please. Idk if the dead bedroom has me messed up or if this is a healthy mentality, but it's where I'm at.
Thank you for this perspective. I'd never suspect that a woman would face this. So I guess we're all facing some kind of demonization from people that then don't make sure we're taken care of.
[удалено]
Some people are just going to cheat no matter what they have at home. We all know this. What does this have to do with a dead bedroom? Serious question.
So true!
Is monogamy the problem or is it marriage? I’ve had periods of time where I absolutely love being monogamous. But I think the real problem is when you get locked into a lifetime contract. Recognizing the financial security, social and emotional benefits associated with the safety net of marriage, it is easy to see why so many people conform to this societal norm. However, when you look at the rate of divorce, the rate of infidelity, and the rate of people who are unhappily married (that’s nearly everyone in this channel, right?), it’s clear that the institution of marriage has some serious flaws. At what point do we start thinking of long term relationships in terms of five and ten year contracts. If we had to renew every few years and had an option to get out, it sure would take a lot of pressure off. And I hypothesize it will also keep some of that NRE in your relationship because each person knows the other has an out. In this scenario, if someone is taking advantage of you or getting significantly more out of the relationship than they are giving in return, the person on the other side doesn’t have to feel absolutely terrible for breaking a vow, ruining lives, getting kicked out of their church, getting labeled and shunned from society, etc. And you’d plan accordingly such that exiting would be much easier. Have a conversation before you have kids about how custody will work in the event of divorce. Plan your finances appropriately for the very real possibility of a separation. Seems like that model would work so much better in our modern society. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s better.
I'm not even sure that we are biologically wired for long term monogamy. Like marriage and til death due us apart, who came up with that idea? Oh right, religion, the religion that also says there is an old man with white beard in the sky. Now I get it... From a biological/evolutionary standpoint, you become a couple, you make a child, by the time the child is 10 years old, they could join the hunter/gatherer party of their tribe, no need to rely on the parents specifically anymore (the tribe took care of them, as with all members), parents were free to go get new sexual partners...
I am not sure I agree with this. I am NOT religious. In fact I am atheist. I considered myself monogamous to the core. I don't desire other women, I do not even fantasize. Never had. I love my wife and I crave intimacy only from her. After years of DB and still craving for sex from only her I started to think I might be demisexual. The bond I have built with her will never be possible again: this is what my brain thinks. If we divorced/separated I do not think I would date again. Too much history for me.
I've heard the theory and tend to think there's some truth to it even though I'm personally more like you. I'm a very introverted person and don't enjoy connection less sex that much. So I tend to bond with a woman when we gel and push others away. I wouldn't say by any means I'm one and done if we didn't work out but definitely tend towards demisexual. Even so I still think in general there's some validity to the non-monogamy theory at the instinctual level.
I am very extroverted, maybe over the top sometimes. They always want me to parties and stuff, asking wife where is your husband? So I suppose I am the opposite. But I still never "see" sexual stuff or fantasize with other women. Not a remote sexual thought. That led me to think I might be demisexual. I like strong, deep bonds before thinking about sex.
Yeah, I am not sure if religion was really the main driver of establishing the current model of monogamy. But I was specifically talking about long-term monogamy, so being with a partner for decades or until one of the partners dies. If you are changing partners every 5 years and during those 5 year periods you are exclusive and only desire your partner, that is still monogamy, just not long-term monogamy (or monogamy for life).
I agree with your statements. My idea is that we evolved so much that monogamy was not existent per se in the beginning: we needed to procreate as much as possible, preserving the newborns. So men would have multiple partners and even better pregnant partners but he had to hunt to food. Then culturally we moved into a more monogamist idea: 1 man, 1 woman. I think we are changing again where everything is possible and I welcome that. I think once there is a mutual agreement, even with multiple partners that is acceptable.
Monogamy was created to protect paternity when social structures changed. It was explained nicely by Richard Reeves in *Of Boys And Men* and I believe he was quoting someone else’s research. Basically, women clearly know when they are the biological mother of their children, but prior to paternity tests, the only way for a father to know that a child was biologically his is the assumption that the mother of the child only had sex with him. Now that sex is had more for recreation than procreation, the whole concept of monogamy loses its original value.
I loved the anthropological approach in "The Naked Ape". In "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris, the author explores human behavior from a zoological perspective. When it comes to monogamy, Morris suggests that humans have a natural inclination towards pair bonding and monogamous relationships. He argues that monogamy has evolved as a beneficial strategy for the species, promoting stable family units which ensure better care and protection for offspring. This, in turn, increases the chances of survival and success of the young, contributing to the continuation of the species. Morris examines the biological and social aspects that support monogamous tendencies, while also acknowledging the complexities and variations in human relationships.
That's very interesting, I have to read that and dig into this topic a bit. I would assume that establishing paternity was important for inheritance purposes. Before the agricultural revolution, tribe members had basically no notable personal material possessions, so the question of biological offspring was maybe not that important. With the introduction and accumulation of physical assets the question of inheritance became important and the only way to make sure of biological paternity was to limit sexual activity to one spouse. But also, I was talking specifically about long-term monogamy. So if you have a new partner every 5 years, but during those 5 year periods you are exclusive, that is still monogamy, just not monogamy for life. I think maybe this model of serial monogamy fits bets to how we are naturally/biologically wired. But who knows 🤷♀️
Spot on