The Institution of Monogamous Marriage and Alternatives

-- By YinanZhang - 18 Apr 2009

Introduction

The institution of monogamous marriage has an undeniably overwhelming impact in our lives. Most people undergo through the experience at one point or another. But do we really consider the full impact of such a union? To a certain extent, most people marry simply because society has subconsciously instilled the idea that monogamy carries utmost moral weight because it is formed from free love between two people who are willing to exclude everyone else. This notion is achieved by outlawing other forms of romantic relationship and building legal incentives such as tax breaks and community property for married couples. Society has good reasons to do so: monogamy promotes the division of property and wealth and advances social stability. The concept of exclusive union is so ingrained into our view on the pursuit of happiness that we often fail to think beyond the boundaries of societal restraints and consider other options. Hard data indicates otherwise: about 40% to 50% of American couples end up in divorce (approximation must be used given the paper’s word limit). Contrary to the mainstream view, monogamy does not fully serve our psychological and physiological needs. We should break out of our socially-conditioned comfort zones and search for alternative solutions tailored to different personalities.

Fundamental Drawbacks of Monogamy

Monogamy Erodes Emotional Satisfaction and Creates Jealousy

During the initial stages of a marriage, two people slowly merge together their own ideas, physical and social resources, and knowledge. This combination of identities leads to mutual self-growth for each partner, thus resulting in high emotional satisfaction levels at the beginning of a marriage. However, as the relationship reaches into more mature stages, this self-expansion naturally slows down and as a consequence, the two partners experience decreased psychological fulfillment with each other. In other words, boredom sets in. The argument that a couple reaches the apex of emotional fulfillment through a complete merge of personalities fails to consider the natural human penchant for curiosities and new knowledge.

Moreover, monogamy, as we implement it in our society, promotes the negative and destructive emotion of jealousy, which fosters distrust among couples. Often, when a person pays too much attention to a member of the opposite sex, the partner would scold him or her and then justify the scolding by saying “I’m only jealous because I love you.” However, such a justification is also common among perpetrators of domestic violence. The two situations are fundamentally similar enough that we should not reject the justification in the latter scenario without also rejecting it in the former. Jealousy connotes a sense of ownership that simply run counter against the notion of free love between two people.

Monogamy Represses Human Sexuality

Monogamous union also forces people to suppress their innate sexual desire. From an evolutionary perspective, human physiology inclines toward embracing several sexual partners at the same time. Males desire to pass on their genes by impregnating as many desirable females as possible. Females strive to guarantee the survival fitness of children by receiving genes from the most sexually desirable males while simultaneously looking to secure an abundant nurturing atmosphere from less sexually appealing, but dependable and caring, males. Unfortunately, the male predilection to spreading genes and dependability often conflict against each other. Therefore, a female in general must copulate with multiple males in order to satisfy all her needs. The notion that sexual exclusivity improves physical satisfaction fails to take into account this gap between evolutionary needs and social realities of marriage. Similar to the gradual drop in emotional satisfaction, a person simply becomes bored with his/her partner's sexuality with the passage of time.

Potential Alternatives to Monogamy

The idea of monogamous marriage ignores many aspects of fundamental human desire. However, this is not to say that everyone should abhor the idea of a husband-and-wife union. Some strongly-mutually-dependent betas may thrive in monogamous arrangements by securing from their partners the physical and emotional supports that they otherwise would not receive from others. However, we should realize that monogamy is not a one-size-fits-all solution to personal happiness and strive to consider other alternatives with their own advantages and disadvantages.

The most obvious alternative to marriage is singlehood. This option possesses inherent pros and cons. Indeed, a single person would free himself/herself from the obligations of marriage and relationship, thus able to embrace full sexual freedom and avoid the gap between natural sexual needs and the restraints placed on it by a monogamous marriage. However, such a single individual would be unable to experience the joy that comes with one’s expansion of knowledge and capabilities during the initial stages of a monogamous relationship.

In additional to singlehood, we may engage in multiple loving, intimate relationships simultaneously with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. This embrace of the polyamory reform movement would in effect abolish the institution of monogamous marriage. A handful of people in our society already follow this legally-unrecognized lifestyle. Nevertheless, this solution, if to be recognized by the legal system, seems impossible within the foreseeable future because it calls for a complete toppling of existing social conditions.

In the end, whether we want to maintain a complete sense of “self” through singlehood, strive to merge our identities with those of life partners through marital union, or choose one of many options in between the two extremities, depends on a balancing of the benefits and risks of each lifestyle. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to our own happiness to ponder the full range of consequences of each option instead of blindly following the orders of society.

---

Introduction

The institution of monogamous marriage has an undeniably significant impact on our society. Most people undergo through the process at one point or another. But do they really consider the full consequences of a legal union? I believe that people, to a certain extent, marry simply because society hold them to an expectation and subconsciously instills the ideal of marriage into their minds. As children, parents expect us to go through certain essential stages of life, of which marriage is one, to attain maturity and responsibility. Society promotes the image that a life spent with our spouses until death serves as the only way to reach emotional happiness. Such a concept of soul mate stems from a dependent need for the other much comparable to a limited market for goods in which there exist only a limited number of participants, without whom our value would go to waste as in A. Leff’s Swindling and Selling. We must find the best offer for which to exchange our value in order to produce additional value for both parties. Such a concept is so ingrained into our view on the pursuit of happiness that we often fail to think beyond the boundaries of societal restraints and consider other alternatives.

Benefits of Marriage

First of all, marriage undoubtedly confers many benefits upon members of civilized society. This is unsurprising due to the fact that our society purposely promotes legal union to further order. Indeed, monogamous marriage caters to certain aspect of human nature because we are all social beings that desire feelings of stability and security. We want to acquire the peace of mind that when we go home from a long day of hard work, or when we are immobilized due to illness, someone will be there to comfort and take care of us. Long term relationships accommodate these emotional needs quite well. Furthermore, under our monogamy-oriented society, married couples enjoy unique legal advantages such as tax reduction and unique property status.

Risks of Marriage

However, we often fail to consider the disadvantages of marriage until such unions crumble and fail. We all fantasize the perfect marriage in which we happily hold the hands of our spouse until old age and death. Regrettably, statistics paint a different picture. In the U.S., approximately 40% to 50% of couples divorce. Divorce proceedings are prohibitively expensive and often lead to inequitable division of assets between divorcees in addition to divorce attorney fees. Even if we disregard the financial consequences, emotional turpitude may convince us to think twice before entering marriage. Fewer feelings of hatred exceed those which arise from former feelings of love between two individuals. Divorced couples feel betrayed, confused, and lost after they lose the other’s companionship. Among the still-married couples who experienced infidelity but for some reason decided against separation, unfaithfulness results in long-term emotional pain and distrust. Taking a further step back, even if a couple does manage to hold together a stable relationship, such an arrangement often lacks passion and eventually deteriorates into daily monotony consisting of work, chores, grocery shopping, and child-rearing. Perhaps other channels for emotional happiness exist.

Benefits/Risks of Singlehood

The most obvious alternative to marriage calls into mind singlehood. This path contains its own inherent pros and cons. A truly single person (uninvolved in exclusive long term relationship) frees himself or herself from the obligations of marriage. The most obvious advantage of singlehood grants full sexual freedom. From an evolutionary perspective, human biology inclines toward embracing several sexual partners simultaneously. Males desire to pass on their genes by impregnating as many desirable females as possible. Females strive to guarantee the survival fitness of her children by receiving the genes from the most sexually desirable males while simultaneously looking to secure a safe nurturing atmosphere from less sexually appealing, but dependable and caring males. Unfortunately, the male predilection to spread his genes and dependability often conflict against each other. Singlehood avoids the gap between evolutionary needs and the social realities of marriage. Moreover, two relatively-unbound individuals reduce the impact that jealousy has on their well-being because a non-possessing social relationship rarely leads to such a destructive emotion. On the other hand, singlehood retains its own set of flaws that monogamous marriage cures. Without a long term partner, one would not acquire emotional stability and the deep emotional connection that come with familiarity. He or she would also face immense difficulty in raising children. After all, we humans are biologically programmed to bear offspring to pass on our legacy and genes. Additionally, for quite obvious reasons, we would evade the financial and emotion stress associated with divorce.

Other Alternatives

The less extreme remedy for reducing the risks of marriage entails the prenuptial agreement. However, this pre-arrangement merely serves as a minor provision addressing the monetary issue within the overreaching contract of marriage, which involves emotional, physical, and financial commitments. Moreover, for a majority of the population, this remedy arguably carries the stigma that a couple already plans for future disintegration, thus undermining the major element of dedication in marriage. On the opposite extreme of the spectrum, we may reconcile our biological needs through an abolition of the institution of monogamous marriage and instead embrace a polyamory reform movement, in which individuals engage in more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. A handful of people in our society embrace this legally unrecognized lifestyle. Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately?), this solution, if to be recognized by the legal system, seems impossible within the foreseeable future because it calls for a complete topple of the existing institution. In the end, whether we choose to maintain a complete sense of “self” through singlehood or strive to merge our identity with that of a life partner through marital union depends on a balancing of the benefits and risks of each lifestyle. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to our own happiness to ponder the full extent of each choice’s consequences, instead of blindly following the orders of society.

• I think this is a draft before the draft, as it were: it seems to me to have collected in one place many of your thoughts, along with some relatively familiar statements that one would hesitate to characterize as thoughts. But there's not much structure of flow or development given to these thoughts, no thesis, no development of the idea through multiple stages of explanation, no real conclusion. I think the most important step to the improvement of the paper is to ascertain what your most significant idea is, in your view: the point you want to convince people of. Then the essay should be reorganized around that theme.

It's a little bit misleading to simply state that "approximately 40% to 50% of couples divorce" and leave it at that. This New York Times article paints a significantly more complicated picture. Most relevantly:

"The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 [Census Bureau] survey was 41 percent for men who were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same age group."

and, most relevantly for us:

"for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first 10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and 1979.

About 60 percent of all marriages that eventually end in divorce do so within the first 10 years, researchers say. If that continues to hold true, the divorce rate for college graduates who married between 1990 and 1994 would end up at only about 25 percent, compared to well over 50 percent for those without a four-year college degree."

I think your paper might be more useful in advancing the conversation if it addressed the complexity of the situation head-on, or perhaps focused more directly on the state of marriage within a certain group within the broader "Americans". Though bearing the same name, "marriage" means something completely different for a couple of 19 year olds who never go to college than it does for 27 year old professionals.

-- MichaelDreibelbis - 01 Apr 2009

The divorce rate is very confusing metric to get a handle on since we don't know what is the base. It is not fair to compare divorce rate per capita since there is a wide difference between the population composition of each country. A country with a large number of 20-30 year old may have a lower divorce rate per capita since the couple may not have gotten to that point. Other possible base population could be the number of new marriages, etc. Depending on what divorce rate you are referring to, you end up with different number and ranking.

-- XinpingZhu - 02 Apr 2009

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, YinanZhang

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list