Marriage and the Norm of Monogamy

Abstract

Wilt thou keep thee only unto her?l You whisper soft to me That I ain ~the only one To breathe your yellow hair Caress your bosom fair Do you think I really care? Do you think it matters?2It appears that spouses have less reason to hold eaeh other to a norm of monogamy than to rejeet the nonne The nonn of monogamy involves a restrietion of spouses' aeeess to two things of value: sex and erotie love. This restrietion initially appears unwarranted but ean be justified. There is reason for spouses to aeeept the norm of monogamy if their marriage satisfies three eonditioßS. Otherwise, there is reason to pennit non-monogamy. Some spouses have reason to accept the norm of monogamy because this will avoid reasonable hurt and prevent diversion of resourees needed to sustain the marriage. Other spouses have reason to pennit non-monogamy to allow the spouses aeeess to aspeets of a well-rounded life. The ehoice to be either monogamous or non-monogamous ean also be non-instrumentally valuable if chosen for the right reasons.

Three’s a crowd: public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory

“…Although our results were replicated across two studies, all participants were US residents and a majority identified as White/European-American, representing a westernised perspective in which monogamy is the dominant relationship orientation (Weaver & Woollard, 2008). By contrast, research on polygamy suggests that nonmonogamous relationship orientations are more prevalent and more culturally accepted in religiously affiliated societies in African and Middle-Eastern countries (Al-Krenawi, Slonim-Nevo, & Graham, 2006;Khasawneh, Hijazi, & Salman, 2011;Owuamanam, 1984).…”

“…In addition to considering the limitations of monogamy (to initiate value self-confrontation; Grube et al, 1994), participants in this condition were asked to also consider the benefits for two reasons: First, having participants consider only the limitations of monogamy would likely have introduced demand characteristics. Second, people frequently and automatically think about the benefits of monogamy -as noted previously, mononormativity is pervasive and is woven into how we typically think about personal relationships Ryan & Jetha, 2010;Sheff, 2014;Weaver & Woollard, 2008) -and therefore, even if we had not asked about the benefits, participants would have likely been primed to think of the benefits because such thoughts are so dominant that they would be automatically activated. Thus, we argue that the nature of the self-reflection task (which asks about both pros and cons of monogamy) effectively initiates value confrontation in a way that minimises demand characteristics.…”

“…It could be argued that these traits fit well within the schema of 'mononormativity' in our society (Barker & Langdridge, 2010;Pieper & Bauer, 2005). Despite these negative views towards polyamory, research contradicts the notion in many westernised cultures that monogamy is the dominant and only socially acceptable orientation for romantic relationships (Ryan & Jetha, 2010;Weaver & Woollard, 2008); other relationship orientations (including polyamory) can be just as viable as monogamy Mitchell et al, 2013;Ryan & Jetha, 2010;Sheff, 2014). We also found that although men and women have similar ATP, men are more likely to be interested in the relationship orientation.…”

Romantic Relationship Dynamics of Urban African American Adolescents

“…Was there a point in the relationship when you two became monogamous to each other?”). Adolescents who endorsed being in a dyadic relationship and engaging in sexual behavior only with their dyadic pair at the time of data collection were considered to be in a mutually monogamous relationship (Schmookler & Bursik, 2007; Weaver & Woolard, 2008). When the respondent or the respondent's sex partner had a concurrent sexual partner at any point during the time of the relationship, the participant was considered not to be in a mutually monogamous relationship.…”

Modal Monogamy

“…There are also many extant philosophical discussions of marriage and/or sex that do not assume (and in several cases explicitly question) exclusivity and/or dyadicity in these domains. One excellent example is Weaver and Woollard (2008). However, as mentioned above, my focus here is on romantic love, for which neither sex nor marriage can stand proxy.…”