There’s been a lot of talk lately about the definitions of monogamy and fidelity. In a recent Psychology Today article, Dr. David Ley poses the question, “What is fidelity, anyway?” The article questions why we choose to define monogamy the way we do. Ley begins the article with a discussion of author Helen Fisher who believes that monogamy only states a marriage to one person. She thinks that the requirement of fidelity is something that is not technically required. Ley also notes that the French have lower rates of infidelity because they define it differently.
I don’t think any of this makes sense. Let’s start with the definition monogamy. Dictionary.com has three definitions 1) Marriage to one person at a time 2) The practice of only having one mate and 3) The practice of marrying only once during life.
Fisher and I both likely think that the third definition can be ruled out. It’s absurd to say that you can’t be monogamous if got remarried after your first husband beat you or cheated on you. Monogamy is about commitment to that individual.
Now let’s look at the first definition, which would be Fisher’s definition. This definition is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, taken literally, monogamy does not require marriage. You can be in a monogamous dating relationship. Also remember that homosexuals cannot get married in the vast majority of states. Nevertheless, they can be in monogamous relationships too. In fact, if you look at the definition from Psychology Today, you’d see that it has nothing to do with a white gown and rings:
Marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death, but in practice is increasingly cut short by divorce
Obviously going to the courthouse will make your relationships “official,” but what about an unmarried couple that purchases a home together? I’d argue that being locked into a 30-year marriage is official. Let’s not forget that a few states still recognize common law marriages too.
HOWEVER, the real reason why the definition is flawed is because it only requires marriage; not fidelity is required. That doesn’t make sense from a practically. You mean to tell me that if Tiger and Elin would have remained married until they were both dead, he would have been monogamous? That’s ridiculous. It’s also ridiculous to say that you are in a monogamous relationship if you are a swinger couple or have an open relationship. That’s called polyamory and there’s a reason why it’s given it’s own word.
We all know that MONO means one. It’s really simple actually; monogamy is a relationship with one other person. That’s it. It doesn’t have to be a long-term relationship. If you only have one mate, you are monogamous. If that one mate only has you as a mate, then you are in a monogamous relationship.
And that’s why #2 is the correct definition and I’m right.
Source: Psychology Today
Recent Comments