Monogamy vs Open Relationships

[eric246]

I've been doing quite a bit of research on open relationships recently, and why they seem to be, "on the rise". Most statistics I've seen seem to show open relationships failing, due to the jealousy, time-committment, and drifting apart of the main couple. There are people that defend it, however, stating, "Monogamy isn't natural. Our natural instincts are to pro-create with many partners and have many off-spring" or the argument, "I want to share my love with more than just one person".

I'm beginning to think that open relationships are just ways for people to obtain self gratification through justified cheating. I wonder, if sex was removed from the equation for open relationships, if people would even want them anymore? Sex seems to be put on the forefront of relationship requirements in our modern times, and it's quite sad.

As for monogamy, I've seen examples of animals that are monogamous, and I'm sure you could easily look that up if you were curious about specifics. I find it funny that people talk about, "natural urges" for sex, yet ignore so many 'un-natural' behaviors we partake in every day. It's certainly not natural to wake up every day and drive your car with air-conditioning to the same building where you sit in an office chair and work from 9-5 and eat genetically modified food. We also have 'natural urges' to eat, but that doesn't mean we go around eating every item of food we see, or filling our bodies with junk food.

I guess my main question is, why are so many people against monogamy? Is it because it requires the most work? Because it doesn't allow for sexual freedom that is becoming praised in our current society? I'd love to know your opinions.

[PaulSacramento]

First off, something being "natural" does not make it right or healthy for people ( or even animals).
There are many things that happen in nature that are natural that one would be hard pressed to condone ( but that some still do anyways).
I used to think that monogomy was NOT the way for me.
Then I met my wife and I can't fathom being with anyone else, ever.
We are going on 14 years and I love her more today than yesterday, know what I mean?

When we SETTLE for something, we are never happy and always looking for that "something else".
This is the case with a car, a job or a life partner.

[Jac3510]

There are two senses of "natural." The first, more common today, is what you seem to have in mind: what we find in nature, or the common patterns we see "out there." To appeal to what is natural in this sense--specifically when discussing ethics--is called the naturalistic fallacy. The underlying assumption is that what is found in nature is good, which is simply not necessarily the case.

The other sense of the word "natural" is the classical sense, which means 'pertaining to the nature/essence of a thing.' Thus, it is in the nature of triangles to have three sides. It is natural for the earth to orbit the sun (note that "natural" here can be understood in both senses; I am illustrating the second example). The notion of purpose is inextricably linked to this usage. It is natural for fire to heat things up. That is what it does. It is natural for hearts to pump blood. That's what they do. If something doesn't pump blood, it isn't a heart; if something doesn't produce heat, then it can't be fire. All this is to say that things do what they do because of what they are.

This all has obvious implications in the sexual realm. The male and female genitals are designed for one another (that's should be admitted by both the atheist and the Christian; we can just as well admit for the sake of argument that evolution 'designed' the male/female genitalia--what can't be denied is that they specifically function one for the other). Thus, we would say the male/female sexual union is natural in the second sense of the word (we don't care whether or not it is natural in the first sense, or if any other unions are natural in the first sense).

But from here we would argue that monogamy is natural in the second sense, and that open relationships are actually unnatural. The reason is that the nature of the sexual union is to produce children. Moreover, the nature of the child/parent relationship is one in which the children are dependent on the parents, and that for a very long time. That dependence extends to both parents, and that (again) by nature. Children, by nature, are best raised in a stable environment; the most natural option for who should raise them is their parents.

All this calls for monogamy. Open relationships break the natural order. In the man's case, an open relationship "allows" him to produce a very wide variety of offspring that he will not be able to adequately pay attention to because of the fact that the children are by multiple women. In the woman's case, it means that she is less likely to know who the father is (hello, Daddy issues!). All of this breeds conflict in the "family"--multiple men taking on roles caring for different children; multiple women taking on roles caring for different children . . .

Forget whether or not it happens "in nature." That's not the way our nature is designed to function.

Bottom line: monogamy is good (in the sense that it correctly follows and exemplifies--the technical word is "perfects"--the natural relationship; for comparison, imagine a "good" triangle vs. a poorly drawn one) in that it is natural; open relationships are bad insofar as they are unnatural. And let me emphasize, again, I have been using "natural" in the second sense (except for the one usage which I have in quotations in the paragraph above).

Hope that helps. If this line of thought interests you, look into natural law theory. Start with Edward Feser's stuff.

[eric246]

Thanks for the replies! Both very helpful.