# Open Marriages- Is that the future in our society??



## Wolfgar (Nov 15, 2011)

Greetings everyone, it's been a while since I've posted, but I thought this was an interesting topic and was hoping to stir up some debate. Since the betrayal of my wife I have been rethinking the whole idea of marriage and relationships.

Is it just me or does it seem that our society is moving more towards open marriages/relationships?

A few points:

1. Decline of religion and the traditional marriage
2. Throughout history women have relied on men for survival, now, more than any other time in history, they do not. 
3. Are humans even naturally monogamous? It seem's like it's a constant struggle for people to remain faithful. Regardless of how in love or how happy they are, their always tempted to be with others? Realistically, how many men would be able to turn town a beautiful victoria secret model, or how many of you ladies could turn down a Brad Pitt?
4. Dramatic shift (or evolution) in our culture. Affairs and forbidden love are highly romanticized in our culture, it's more acceptable in society now more than ever. Example; "In Tibetan culture, it is considered normal for several husbands to share a single wife, while in many other regions polygamy (several wives for one husband) is preferred"
5. Marriage statistics show a rapid increase in divorce rates and infidelity

It seems like a losing battle, or at least couples seem to have the odds heavily stacked against them. The traditional marriage seems to be dying.

Thoughts?


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

Open marriage? To me = why bother? Just stay single. JMO.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Damn I hope not. I'm too old to change. Plus, having more than one wife? I'm exhausted thinking about it.


----------



## Thorburn (Nov 23, 2011)

I wonder if my wife is Tibetan. If not she has been living like one.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Thorburn said:


> I wonder if my wife is Tibetan. If not she has been living like one.


Ouch. Sending you a mental beer right now.


----------



## Wolfgar (Nov 15, 2011)

It's just crazy to me how a person who loves and cares for another person can so easily betray that person and cause them that kind of intense pain. To be able to do that the forces that tempt people to cheat must be pretty f*ckin powerful. I know with my wife, she completely transformed...it was horrible to witness...like watching a car accident in slow motion.

@candiegirl
I'm not an advocate for open marriages, but I could see some advantages to it rather than just being single. Still having a close companion (being single gets lonely), help with raising children, easier from a financial stand point, comfort/convenience, etc. 

@beowulf
I hear that my wolf brotheren

@thor
ouch indeed...


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

It's not the future of our household or what we're teaching our children. 

But, with the way things are going in society now, I don't think it would be too shocking.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Wolf, did you read the study I posted recently that humans may indeed be evolving toward monogamy and not away from it?


----------



## Wolfgar (Nov 15, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> Wolf, did you read the study I posted recently that humans may indeed be evolving toward monogamy and not away from it?


No I haven't, but I recently read an article talking about that. How from an evolutionary stand point we're still not a good fit for monogamy, but we're getting there. 

"Monogamous animals (e.g. gibbons) tend to have males and females of the same size and general appearance. Human males are on average 10% bigger than females. Males also have more facial and body hair, broader shoulders and more muscle than females, females have wider hips and breasts. This sexual dimorphism suggests that humans have not evolved to be entirely monogamous. However, the differences in size etc. are not as great as the differences seen between males and females of habitually polygamous species."

(give me the link if you can, I can't find it on your profile)


----------



## TDSC60 (Dec 8, 2011)

I think it is the product of the "ME" generation. They have all been taught that the "ME" comes first. That it is OK to place what they think will make them happy above all else. A promise is kept only if it convenient to do so and does not require sacrifice on their part. Honor and honesty are just word to be tossed around.

I have a word for all of this "SELFISH". This is the word that many live by.


----------



## happyman64 (Jan 12, 2012)

Who the hell could afford more than one woman in a relationship???


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Wolfgar said:


> No I haven't, but I recently read an article talking about that. How from an evolutionary stand point we're still not a good fit for monogamy, but we're getting there.
> 
> "Monogamous animals (e.g. gibbons) tend to have males and females of the same size and general appearance. Human males are on average 10% bigger than females. Males also have more facial and body hair, broader shoulders and more muscle than females, females have wider hips and breasts. This sexual dimorphism suggests that humans have not evolved to be entirely monogamous. However, the differences in size etc. are not as great as the differences seen between males and females of habitually polygamous species."
> 
> (give me the link if you can, I can't find it on your profile)


Here is the post I made and the link to the study.


I know its difficult to follow but basically what the study is saying is that digit ratios correspond to peoples "tastes" in relationships. Example:

_Males, because they produce low-cost sperm, are able to fertilize many eggs. Females, because they produce high-cost ova, are limited to smaller numbers of offspring. In populations with polygyny or frequent extra-pair copulations (EPCs), the variance of male reproductive success is high. That is, a small proportion of successful males may fertilize a high proportion of eggs. When strict monogamy is practiced by most females, the variance in male reproductive success is similar to that of females. In such a situation, polygyny or EPCs may be a successful female strategy if there is substantial heritable variance in male fitness. If there is little such variance, female monogamy would be favored.

Suppose there are two loci controlling in utero hormonal exposure: one influencing testosterone levels and the other estrogen. A mutation arises at the testoster- one locus of a male, which increases in utero exposure. He has high testosterone levels and sperm counts, and these traits are passed on to his sons. However, because sex limitation is incomplete, his daughters have reduced fertility. The existence of such a male or small numbers of such males increases the variance in male fitness and favors a polygynous or EPC strategy in females. The high testosterone mutation will spread and with it the frequency of polygyny or EPCs. However, as the mutation becomes common, the variance in male fitness declines and females switch to increasing frequencies of monogamy. Now conditions favor the spread of a mutation at the estrogen locus, which increases in utero estrogen exposure. Alternating cycles of high prenatal testosterone and high prenatal estrogen will ccur. This is interlocus coevolution of sexually anagonistic genes. Such coevolution has the characteristics of the Red Queen process (Rice and Holland, 1997). Sexually antagonistic genes should affect fertility and, because of population cycles, may be at different frequencies in different populations. In populations with high prenatal exposure to testosterone in both males and females, there may be substantial differences in the variance in male and female reproductive success.

A negative relationship between 2D:4D and offspring number would be expected in males and a positive association in females. In addition, there will be selective pressure for the accumulation of modifiers that cause sex-limited expression. A population that is highly estrogenized in utero would have no marked difference in variance of male and female repro- ductive success, no strong correlation between 2D:4D ratio and offspring number, and little selective pressure for sex-limited expression of prenatal genes._

There is little variance in Polish male fitness, as judged by their tight gradient digit ratios. Poland is a place where female monogamy is favored. The fact that Polish men also have relatively high digit ratios suggests that the men are, like their women, more favorable to monogamy. The country/culture with the lowest digit rations is Finland. Finnish men and women tend to be more predisposed to higher gender based characteristics. Men are more masculine and women are more feminine. This would suggest that both sexes would be less disposed to monogamy. One researcher suggested that the vast differences in the two cultures is explained by geography with the Finnish culture more isolated and the Polish culture more homogenized.

http://hera.ugr.es/doi/15009579.pdf


----------



## brokenbloke (Feb 21, 2012)

To the original question, I believe no.

One aspect I'll tackle is the higher divorce rates. IMO a large part of this has to do with simply that divorce laws have opened up in recent years. Marriages have always been difficult to maintain from the dawn of monogomy. Its only been in the past 50 or so years that people could just get divorced anytime.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

brokenbloke said:


> To the original question, I believe no.
> 
> One aspect I'll tackle is the higher divorce rates. IMO a large part of this has to do with simply that divorce laws have opened up in recent years. Marriages have always been difficult to maintain from the dawn of monogomy. Its only been in the past 50 or so years that people could just get divorced anytime.


I agree. I think the reason marriages are in trouble is due to cultural and environmental factors. Not that we aren't predisposed to monogamy or that an increase in female hypergamy and/or male polygamy is to blame.


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

Look at this way, when you buy a car, you start to see the same model, make, or color. We are all here b/c we have screwed up spouses, so there for we seem to think that there in infidelity everywere.

Granted there is, but we just happen to see the........same make and model were ever we turn.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Wolfgar said:


> It seems like a losing battle, or at least couples seem to have the odds heavily stacked against them. The traditional marriage seems to be dying.
> 
> Thoughts?


I think most of your list are actually improvements.

I agree marriage is declining but I don`t think this naturally leads to open marriages.

The trend I see is simply refusing to marry but continuing to carry on relationships.

I`m good with that.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

Wolfgar said:


> Realistically, how many men would be able to turn town a beautiful victoria secret model, or how many of you ladies could turn down a Brad Pitt?


Realistically, this is never going to be an issue for 99.9999 percent of us. Maybe I'm just hideous, but I don't often find myself being propositioned by Victoria's Secret models.
Not to mock, but let's be honest ... people aren't unfaithful because their affair partner was just too hot to pass up.



> 5. Marriage statistics show a rapid increase in divorce rates and infidelity


Divorce rates have actually been falling for the past 30 years. This I'm sure is largely the result of people being more cautious about who and when they marry. That's a good thing, IMO.
All is not lost.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anubis (Jul 12, 2011)

I do not think our society is moving towards open marriages. Having seen them up close, for most people most of the time its like playing with armed high explosives.

I do think our society is 

1) moving away from some of the reasons that used to drive people to marry (think pre-1960 and getting married just to have sex, or the lack of economic options for women, or the lack of stigma for a single parent today)

2) Moving towards first marriage at a later age - which is a good thing given the current youth-centric culture and delayed adulthood.

3) Slightly moving away from marriage in general, especially for men, as it has become MUCH riskier with no increase in the reward to go along with the risk.

But I do not how the changes in traditional marriage can be linked to open marriage. It's a different can of worms altogether.


----------



## jnj express (Mar 28, 2011)

If its gonna be open---then why have mge., at all

Why legally tie yourself down, you wanna screw around, stay single and just date

Wake up with some no name drunk next to you half the time-----doesn't that sound like a great way to spend your golden years, whoops, that ain't gonna happen in your golden years---you will get to a point where sex is meaningless, and those your age at that point don't want to be with someone they don't know

How does spending your later years by yourself, alone, and not cared about by anyone----that's what living by yourself brings---friends, only can go so far---and as you get older---family is gone---and if you are screwing around with every tom, ****, and harry that walks down the street--

-what becomes of having kids

Mge., may be in trouble---but it has it solid points, and shouldn't be messed with.


----------

