
 Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - wglb
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ee/unknown_knowns_why_did_you_choose_to_be_monogamous/
======
snitko
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with polyamory. Whatever blows your
skirt up. Biologically speaking, men wants to inseminate as much women as he
can. I also accept the author's point about freedom and different kind of
experience that monogamy cannot give. But then the author would also have to
agree, that monogamy may have the depth that any non-monogamous relationshop
lack, so it might be a trade off. Then medically speaking, monogamy is safer.
Psychologically, there are also trade offs: it's usually difficult enough to
get along with one person - I believe issues multiply when you have many. For
example, I don't see anything particularly scary about having multiple wives
(western culture thinks it's some sort of barbaric behavior), but if you look
at it closely, you would understand why it only works in traditional societies
like muslim: because they have mechanisms for holding it all together. Men
there have obviously more authority and thus they hold the power of getting it
all together. In the western world the task gets a lot more complicated
because people are more independent and have more rights legally. One thing
for sure, divorce cases with this model would be a legal hell.

Please note I have not made up my mind about the particular lifestyle so I'm
totally neutral here. I'm not into any relationship right now, but when I
think of it, I sometimes think about how would it be a monogamous ones and
sometimes I feel more like I'd want to stick with some sort of polyamory.

~~~
steveklabnik
> But then the author would also have to agree, that monogamy may have the
> depth that any non-monogamous relationshop lack

This is simply not true. The number of partners has absolutely nothing to do
with the depth of any given relationship, poly or mono.

> I believe issues multiply when you have many.

It's actually the opposite. You don't have to get upset because someone is
lacking in some area, because you have someone else that covers it. It
actually takes a lot of pressure off of a given relationship.

~~~
snitko
1\. I disagree. The number of partners has to do a lot with the depth of any
given relationship. The reasonable analogy is learning a skill. The more time
you spend on it, the better you become. The more time you dedicate to other
disciplines, the more broad interdisciplinary knowledge you gain. It's a
tradeoff. And I don't see why this cannot be applied to people.

2\. As far as I can tell from everyone else's experience (haha) there are
always issues. Issues is not something to be ignored, but rather something to
be discussed, otherwise they grow into something you can't actually solve. The
more partners you have, the less time you have to discuss those issues.

~~~
steveklabnik
1\. While your basic idea is good, the aspect that you're missing is that
relationships with one person can actually enhance your relationships with
another. Poly actually encourages the very skills that make relationships
work.

2\. From my actual experiences, there are always issues, yes. However, they're
not as big, because you quickly get very good at communicating and resolving
those issues.

I didn't mean to imply that issues should be covered up, sorry. That's
absolutely not the case. What I meant was, you can appreciate a relationship
with different people for different reasons.

~~~
snitko
Okay, points taken, they sound valid. Although the problem for me is, I can't
take your word for it. I wish there was some research on it with some real
data. That would rule out any speculation. For now, there'd be mostly
subjective views and opinions with no evidence. If there was some evidence,
then we could probably see the general pattern of relationship changing over
time and see how humans would handle this in future.

~~~
steveklabnik
It's true.

It's hard to find out about this for a few reasons. First of all, it's really
hard to get good data. This thread is actually the most I've ever spoken about
it on the internet, because I'm not really 'outed' in public except to the
people who know me in real life. This is largely due to the stigma (and
probably some holdover Catholic guilt) that's associated with poly.

Secondly, the data is tainted by people who aren't _really_ practicing open
relationships, and only do it to 'spice up' or 'save' a slowly failing
monogamous one. I largely attribute my own success to it being one of the
preconditions on my relationship being formed.

------
Jun8
I think philosophically, it would be wrong to refer to subconscious drives,
etc. as "knowledge", much as you cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe
in it). That's why there's no category of "unknown knowns".

~~~
cperciva
_you cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe in it)_

Let's just say that N philosophers have at least N+1 definitions of what
"knowing" means, not all of which are consistent with your position, and leave
it at that.

~~~
Jun8
Hmm, I know epistemology can be hard to fathom (and frankly is not my thing,
my thing being philosophy of language), but I thought my statement was one of
the basic definitions. I would be interested if you can point me to work that
considers a statement like "I know that Chicago is the capital of Illinois"
(it's Springfield) tenable. I was taught that this was an incorrect usage of
_know_.

------
ddewey
"This, then, is your exercise: spend five minutes thinking about why your
choice of monogamy is preferable to all of the other inhabitants of
relationship-style-space, for you."

With most "decisions" about my lifestyle, I keep the societal default until
unhappiness with it prompts me to change, rather than considering all options
from a neutral state. I wonder what the pros and cons of the default-first and
neutral-first strategies are? Default first automatically directs your
attention to "pain points" in your life, but may make you blind to larger,
more existential choices. Default-first also takes into account the "wisdom"
of the masses, at least some of which is probably right. Neutral-first keeps
you from being locked into any one lifestyle by fear or other attachments.

Examples of things that I've consciously changed from the default settings:
I'm vegetarian (animal-rights motivation), I cut my own hair (I like the
simplicity and the control).

For reference on the neutral-first strategy (with a pleasingly mathematical
twist): [http://www.astatespacetraveler.com/a-mathematically-
proven-w...](http://www.astatespacetraveler.com/a-mathematically-proven-way-
to-achieve-happiness/)

------
mitjak
Easy one. Monogamy: the cooking and housework are taken care of! Haha.

Kidding. I'm the cooking obsessed clean freak in the relationship.

------
sliverstorm
I'm not sure the word 'polyfidelity' works. Maybe it does in a dictionary
sense, but as I understand it 'fidelity' or 'fealty' carries a heavy
connotation of loyalty to only one individual, rather than simply loyalty.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Actually, the feudal concept of fealty did not only bind a vassal to a lord,
but - to a lesser degree - also to that lord's lord and so on.

Why do you care? It's a fairly clear word for a new-ish idea, IMHO.

~~~
sliverstorm
I _don't_ care. It just seemed like an odd choice in words.

~~~
steveklabnik
It's a very established term in that community.

If you want to pick on a word for technical reasons, 'polyamory' itself is
actually pretty popular. I can't find a link to the quote now, but it was
something along the lines of "Half greek, and half latin? Obviously wrong."

~~~
JoachimSchipper
E.g.
[http://www.zazzle.com/polyamory_is_wrong_tshirt-235470507350...](http://www.zazzle.com/polyamory_is_wrong_tshirt-235470507350536098).
Yes, it's a stupid term, but it's established at this point...

------
dennisgorelik
Monogamy is safer (on many levels) and not as complex as poly-relationships.

~~~
altano
Yes, non-monogamy is similar in this regard to most other interesting and
desirable things: it's neither easy nor simple.

------
sliverstorm
I don't see how this is relevant to this crowd.

For a choice between between monogamy and polygamy to be relevant, the subject
must have the capability to secure multiple partners. How many subjects
reading hackernews could possibly have this ability?

edit: wow, I must have hit a nerve. This was purely tongue-in-cheek.

~~~
dennisgorelik
Nice try [to tease]. You forgot about another side of the story: you may have
only one partner and still be involved into polygamous relationship (because
of your partner).

~~~
sliverstorm
Who said we can even secure the one? Or that we can secure the ones kinky
enough to dig polyamory?

You got me though :)

