💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › harry-chalmers-is-monogamy-morally-permissiblee.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:45:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible?
Author: Harry Chalmers
Date: 09/28/2018
Language: en
Topics: monogamy, relationships, autonomy, polyamory, not-anarchist
Source:  The Journal of Value Inquiry, vol. 53, no. 2, 2018, pp. 225–241., doi:10.1007/s10790-018-9663-8.

Harry Chalmers

Is Monogamy Morally Permissible?

1 Introduction

Imagine that two partners are in a romantic relationship, and that they

are also (or perhaps a fortiori) friends. Yet theirs is not a typical

relationship, for the partners have agreed on a most unusual

restriction: Neither is allowed to have additional friends. Should

either partner become friends with someone besides the other, the other

partner will refuse to support it—indeed, will go so far as to withdraw

her love, affection, and willingness to continue the relationship.

Many of us, I think, would sense that there’s something morally

troubling about such a relationship. If asked to explain what’s morally

troubling about it, we might say something like this: Friendships are an

important human good, and when we’re in a romantic relationship with

someone, we should want our partner to have such goods in her life. Or

at least, we should want our partner to be free to pursue such goods as

she sees fit. And part of letting our partner have the freedom to pursue

her own good is to refrain from imposing costs on her when she does so.

In the case of friendship, then, we shouldn’t impose costs on our

partner—for example, by withdrawing our love, affection, or willingness

to continue the relationship—if he becomes friends with someone else.

Indeed, many would say that we should go further and actively support

our partner’s efforts to find other friends. When our partner becomes

friends with someone else, we should be happy for her—for she now has an

additional source of value in her life.

So far, so good. But now consider this: Sexual and romantic

relationships are themselves an important human good. They, too,

contribute to our well-being in myriad ways—whether through sexual

pleasure, through a special kind of emotional support and closeness,

through helping us to discover more about ourselves, or through the

countless other everyday joys of sharing one’s life intimately with

another. So why not simply be happy for our partner if he found an

additional partner, much as we’d be happy for our partner if he found an

additional friend? Is disallowing one’s partner from having additional

partners any better than disallowing one’s partner from having

additional friends?

Questions like these are rarely asked, and even less often taken

seriously. Most of us assume that there’s nothing morally suspect about

having one’s relationship be dyadic and exclusive—that is, involving

exactly two partners, and permitting neither partner to engage in

romantic or sexual activity with anyone outside the relationship. We

tend to assume, in other words, that monogamy is morally

permissible—that there must be some morally relevant difference between

disallowing one’s partner from having additional partners and

disallowing one’s partner from having additional friends. Yet finding a

morally relevant difference between the two is much more difficult than

it might seem, for, as I’ll now argue, the standard defenses or

justifications of monogamy all fail. I take this failure to be evidence

that the “no additional partners” restriction of monogamy is in fact

morally analogous to the “no additional friends” restriction described

earlier. Just as a categorical restriction on having additional friends

is immoral, so, too, is monogamy’s categorical restriction on having

additional partners.

2 Monogamy on the Defensive

We’ve seen above how monogamous restrictions are prima facie analogous

to a morally troubling “no additional friends” restriction. The task for

those who would defend monogamy, then, is to find a morally relevant

difference between the two kinds of restriction. There are broadly two

ways in which one might try to find such a morally relevant difference:

(1) argue that the “no additional friends” restriction has bad-making

features that monogamous restrictions lack, or (2) argue that monogamous

restrictions have good-making features that the “no additional friends”

restriction lacks.

It is easy enough to imagine how one might go about the first of these

strategies. One might say, for example, that a restriction on having

additional friends would be much more onerous than monogamous

restrictions. After all, to refrain from having additional partners

merely requires that we keep our romantic and sexual activity to one

person at a time, and surely that’s not so hard or extraordinary. But to

refrain from having additional friends would require a much more

sweeping change to our social life. Were we to restrict ourselves from

having additional friends, we’d have to make sure not to be too friendly

to others we know, not to laugh or chat too much with them, not to

invite them to spend time with us, not to accept their invitations to

spend time with them, not to go out of our way to support them when

they’re in need, not to accept their support when we’re in need—in

short, we’d have to make sure that our relations to all others (save our

partner) stay businesslike at best. Such a straightjacketed social life

is something no minimally decent person would want for her partner.

I grant that a restriction on having additional friends would be a good

deal more onerous than monogamous restrictions, and that this is, in

some sense, a morally relevant difference between the two kinds of

restriction. Yet it is a morally relevant difference only in a weak

sense, namely that it suggests that the restriction on having additional

friends is morally worse than monogamous restrictions. And this, of

course, is not what the defender of monogamy needs— since however worse

the restriction on having additional friends is, it could, for all we

know, be that monogamous restrictions are still morally impermissible.

Some morally impermissible actions, after all, are worse than others;

ceteris paribus, it’s morally worse to assault someone than to tell him

a lie, yet that hardly suggests that lying is morally permissible.

What the defender of monogamy needs, then, is not simply to show that

monogamous restrictions are morally better than the restriction on

having additional friends, but that monogamous restrictions are morally

permissible. And to do that, the defender of monogamy will have to go

beyond strategy (1) above; that is, she’ll have to go beyond simply

arguing that the restriction on having additional friends has bad-making

features that monogamous restrictions lack. After all, however many

unique bad-making features the restriction on additional friends might

have, what matters is whether there is even one bad-making feature that

it shares with monogamous restrictions. I’ve suggested above that there

is a bad-making feature they share: Both restrict one’s partner’s access

to a prima facie important human good—in one case, (additional)

friendships, in the other, (additional) sexual and romantic

relationships.

At this point, the defender of monogamy might say that while both kinds

of restriction have this apparently bad-making feature, this is a

problem only for the restriction on having additional friends—for only

this latter restriction seems to lack any justification. There’s simply

no good reason why partners should restrict one another from having

additional friends. When it comes to sexual and romantic relationships,

however, there are good reasons why partners should restrict one another

from having more than one at a time. Here the defender of monogamy is

opting for strategy (2) above—that is, arguing that monogamous

restrictions have good-making features that the restriction on

additional friends lacks. This is a more promising route than strategy

(1), for, to the extent that monogamy has unique good-making features,

that could explain why monogamy is morally permissible while the

restriction on having additional friends is not. Let’s consider, then,

some attempts to find unique good-making features of monogamy—in short,

some defenses of monogamy.

Here, regrettably, I cannot consider all the defenses of monogamy on

offer. In particular, I must set aside some of the more sophisticated

and recherché defenses in favor of those that are simpler, better known,

and more likely to resonate with monogamists in general. Given the very

limited state of the literature on the topic, even these latter kinds of

defenses of monogamy have not yet received much critical attention. In

addressing them here, I hope to show that defending monogamy turns out

not to be nearly as easy as most people assume.

2.1 The Specialness Defense

One common defense of monogamy is that monogamy helps one’s romantic

relationships to be special. Many think that there is or can be a

distinctive value in choosing, and being chosen by, just one person.

This distinctive value, the thought continues, is enough to justify

monogamy.

The most obvious problem with this defense of monogamy is that it seems

to apply equally to the case of friendship. If having only one partner

makes for a more special romantic relationship, and if the value of this

specialness is sufficient to justify monogamous restrictions, then it is

difficult to see why having only one friend would not likewise make for

a more special friendship, and why this specialness would not likewise

justify the “no additional friends” restriction described earlier. But

clearly such an appeal to specialness could not justify the “no

additional friends” restriction. Having additional friends does not make

any particular friendship less special. And the same holds true for

affectionate or loving relationships more broadly. Consider, for

example, the relationship between parents and children. We do not

generally think that having strictly one child is a way of making the

parent-child relationship more special; were one to have more children,

would not one’s relationship with the first child remain just as

special? And would not one’s relationships with the other children be

just as special as one’s relationship with the first child? If indeed

that is so, then those who defend monogamy on grounds of specialness

must point out a relevant difference between romantic relationships and

other loving relationships—some difference in virtue of which one could

have a more special romantic relationship by having only one partner yet

not have, say, a more special parent-child relationship by having only

one child. It is far from clear whether there is such a difference, much

less what it might be.

I can think of only one reason why one might think that monogamy helps

one’s relationships to be special: if one understands “special” to mean

“exclusive.” (This sense of “special” occurs in sentences like “There

will be special seating for us at the event.”) Under this understanding

of “special,” monogamy indeed helps one’s relationships to be special;

that, of course, follows trivially from equating “special” with

“exclusive.” But surely there is more to this defense of monogamy than

the trivially true claim that monogamous relationships are more

exclusive than nonmonogamous relationships. We must, then, find another

understanding of “special.”

I propose that we understand “special” here to mean “highly valuable.”

This, I think, is a much more natural sense of the word to use when

talking about loving relationships (e.g., “My relationship with this

close friend is very special”). If monogamy helped relationships to be

more special in this sense, that would certainly be a point in its

favor. Notably, however, it does not follow from the fact that monogamy

makes a relationship more special in the first sense, the sense of

exclusivity, that it makes a relationship more special in the second

sense, the sense of being highly valuable. Or at least, if it does

follow, it is not at all obvious. Especially in light of the other

examples of loving relationships, such as parent-child relationships, I

cannot come up with any good reason to think that exclusivity somehow

helps a relationship to be highly valuable. What seems more likely is

that it is only if one conflates the above two senses of “special” that

this defense of monogamy will seem plausible.

2.2 The Sexual Health Defense

A further defense of monogamy centers on sexual health. The idea is that

having multiple sexual relationships at a time leads to a much higher

risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and, in heterosexual

relationships, of unwanted pregnancy. If partners want to reduce such

risks, they are well advised to restrict each other to one sexual

relationship at a time—in other words, to embrace monogamy.

Sexual health is an important concern. For multiple reasons, however, it

fails to justify monogamy. First, a concern for sexual health is simply

too narrow to justify the full range of monogamous restrictions. After

all, monogamous restrictions apply not only to sex, but to activities

like intimate dancing and outercourse, and often to emotional intimacy

as well. Even if the sexual health defense succeeds in justifying

monogamous restrictions on sex, it does little to justify these other

restrictions that are a part of monogamy.

More damningly, the sexual health defense does not even succeed in

justifying monogamous restrictions on sex—not in light of the various

methods of contraception and safer sex. Through properly using condoms

and other methods of safer sex, partners can dramatically reduce the

risk of STIs and unwanted pregnancy. Some might object that even with

such methods, the risk is not wholly eliminated. But then, there are

risks of all kinds to be found in activities that we nevertheless find

worthwhile. Driving, biking, and playing sports, for example, all

involve risks, particularly risks of bodily harm or even death. Yet it

would be silly to say, merely on that basis, that we ought not to engage

in such activities, or that it is okay for partners to forbid one

another from engaging in them. I see no reason for thinking that

non-monogamous sex is any different.

A genuine, intellectually honest assessment of risk must take into

account not only the fact that a risk exists, but the nature and extent

of the risk weighed against the benefits of the activity that carries

the risk. In order to justify monogamy on grounds of sexual health, one

would have to show that the risk of STIs and unwanted pregnancy is so

serious, and the benefits of non-monogamous sexual activity so minor,

that it makes sense for partners to refuse one another even the

possibility of taking on board a new sexual relationship. To be sure,

some cases may well fit this description, especially in areas where

protection, contraception, and STI testing are unavailable. However, for

those of us in developed countries with access to contraception,

protection, and STI testing, considerations of sexual health alone are

not likely to justify monogamy.

Risk assessments ought generally to be done case by case, with open

discussion between partners. Admittedly, even for those who do have

access to sexual health resources, in some cases sex with another may

not be worth the risks involved. For example, suppose that a certain

person refuses to discuss his sexual history, get tested, or use

protection. In such a case, clearly each partner in a couple would be

right to bar one another from sex with that person. Acknowledging the

potential for cases like this, however, does nothing to justify the

across-the-board restrictions inherent to monogamy, for there are other

cases in which the risks are much lower (say, when a new potential

partner is perfectly willing to discuss his sexual history, get tested,

and use protection). Embracing non-monogamy, it is essential to

remember, does not at all mean that one must be open to any sexual

contact between one’s partner(s) and others. Rather, it means that one

will, at least in principle, be open to sexual contact between one’s

partner(s) and others in at least some cases. More precisely, if one is

to be consistent in one’s non-monogamy, one should be open to sexual

contact between one’s partner(s) and others in any case in which there

is no good reason not to be open to it.

2.3 The Children Defense

The next defense of monogamy centers on raising children. Specifically,

one might think that monogamy is the healthiest relationship style for

raising children; children develop best when they see their parents as

romantically involved only with one another. Of course, this point could

justify monogamy only for partners who have children, particularly young

children; it does nothing to justify monogamy for partners who are

child-free or whose children have grown up. Still, many partners do in

fact have young children. So if indeed in those cases monogamy is

justified, that’s a strong point in monogamy’s defense.

There are multiple problems with this defense of monogamy. The first is

that, even if we assume that it is harmful to children to see their

parents be romantically involved with others, it does not follow that

parents ought not to be romantically involved with others. To draw an

analogy, we might suppose that watching violent films is harmful for

young children. It does not follow, of course, that parents ought not to

watch violent films. They need only make sure that, if they decide to

watch violent films, they do so when their children are away or asleep.

Similarly, even if young children need to see their parents as

monogamous, parents are nevertheless free to have other relationships;

they need only keep their other relationships private. Perhaps this will

strike some as wrongfully hiding the truth from children. Yet that

objection seems odd; since when are parents not allowed to have a

private life? Moreover, as a matter of course, parents refrain from

exposing their children to things that the children are considered too

young to confront or understand—not the least of which happen to be the

parents’ own sexual relations. Why would the parents’ sexual relations

with others be any less okay to keep private?

Thus far in my response I have assumed that children develop best when

they perceive their parents as monogamous. As it turns out, there is no

good evidence for this assumption; it is mere speculation, with about as

much plausibility as the speculation that children develop best with

heterosexual parents. By the evidence available, whether a family

environment is monogamous or non-monogamous does not by itself have any

bearing on how suitable it is for children. Apart from having basic,

material needs met, what matters most for children is having an ample

amount of love, support, acceptance, and understanding. There is no

reason to suppose that parents must be monogamous for their children to

have the love, support, acceptance, and understanding that every child

needs. If anything, for parents to have other partners who help provide

these needs is likely to be helpful, not harmful, to the children.

Still, some might feel a lingering worry. One feature of non-monogamous

relationships, after all, is that partners break up. A pair of

non-monogamous parents will often have a gradual stream of partners

coming into and out of their lives over the years. If the children get

to know and to spend time with these partners, the children are prone to

becoming attached. Thus, when either parent breaks up with a partner,

does that not present a hardship for the children? Won’t the children

feel hurt and abandoned?

It is indeed true that non-monogamous parents sometimes break up with

their partners—including partners who have become a valued part of the

children’s lives. In not at all such cases, however, will this present a

hardship for the children; particularly when the breakup is amicable,

the ex-partner might well remain friends with the parents and thus

continue to have a place in the children’s lives. Of course, in cases

where the ex-partner does depart from the children’s lives, whether for

having broken up with the parents on bad terms or for any other reason,

that is indeed saddening for the children. Ultimately, though, such a

prospect is not a good reason for parents to stick to monogamy. After

all, there are all kinds of figures who give invaluable support and

guidance to children, and to whom the children become attached, yet who

have only a passing presence in the children’s lives. As children grow

older, they must say goodbye to valued teachers, coaches, camp

counselors, grandparents, pets, and friends. I doubt anyone would

suggest that it would be better in the end if such figures were never an

important part of children’s lives in the first place, just so the

children could be spared the pain of seeing them go. Even with the pain

of saying farewell, the children are better off for having known them.

But then, why would the same not hold true in cases where non-monogamous

parents cut ties with one of their partners?

A further point is that the above worry—the worry about how children

might be affected by breakups between parents and their partners—applies

not only to nonmonogamous parents, but also to monogamous single

parents. A monogamous single parent might well have a series of partners

gradually coming into and out of her life as her children grow up. Is

the risk of the children’s being harmed by breakups so grave that

monogamous single parents ought not to start new relationships? Surely

few would want to say this.

There is only one further way I see of defending monogamy by appealing

to the need to protect children, and that is to charge that non-monogamy

is too impractical for raising children: Parents simply do not have

enough time or energy to devote themselves adequately both to their

children and to (multiple) other partners. But that leads us to the next

defense of monogamy, a defense that deserves a section of its own.

2.4 The Practicality Defense

One might defend monogamy on practical grounds. One might argue, for

instance, that while it would be nice if we could devote our romantic

attention to unlimited partners at a time, our time and energy are

finite. Being monogamous, then, is a way for us to ensure that we do

not, by taking on too many partners at a time, become unable to devote

the time and energy to our partner—and, if we have them, our

children—that are called for in a relationship.

There’s no doubt that we humans are limited in our time and energy. Yet

this does nothing to justify monogamous restrictions. The mere fact that

we are incapable of devoting our romantic attention to unlimited

partners at a time hardly justifies setting the limit to one. After all,

we are likewise incapable of having unlimited friends at a time, but

surely that doesn’t justify a “no additional friends” restriction like

the one described in the introduction.

Another problem with the practicality defense is that it could be

directed at any use of time and energy that does not involve one’s

partner or children. Should one pursue a hobby or spend time with one’s

friends, then—barring the prospect of having one’s partner and children

along for everything one does—one will be spending time and energy away

from one’s partner and children. Surely there is nothing wrong with

this. Indeed, it is a normal part of healthy relationships. But in light

of this, the practicality defense is in trouble. Since it is acceptable

for one to spend time and energy away from one’s partner and children,

why should it matter if some of the time and energy one spends away from

one’s partner and children happen to involve sex and romance with

others? From the standpoint of time and energy management, at least,

there seems to be nothing wrong here.

There is, however, an improved version of the practicality defense.

Specifically, one might propose that not merely time and energy

management, but considerations of people’s emotional limitations can

justify monogamy. Romantic relationships, after all, require us to

extend our concern to others, to be wrapped up in their world, to become

vulnerable to them. And, no matter how much we may wish it were

otherwise, we can love and care for other people only so much. Given the

emotionally demanding nature of romantic relationships, along with our

own emotional limitations, it is entirely legitimate to focus our

attention on developing one relationship at a time—and to expect our

partner to do the same. In at least some cases, partners who commit to

directing their attention in this way will have a deeper, more

manageable, and more satisfying romantic life than they would if they

spread themselves more thinly.

While more plausible than what came before, this new version of the

practicality defense has its own set of problems. The first stems from

the fact that not all forms of non-monogamy involve openness to multiple

emotionally intimate relationships at a time. In some forms of

non-monogamy, the focus is on sex rather than emotional intimacy. Even

if we grant that a single romantic relationship will leave us

emotionally exhausted, allowing casual sex on the side (but nothing

beyond that) seems just as much a solution as opting for full-blown

monogamy.

But surely this won’t do, some will object—for what starts as a bit of

casual sex on the side can all too easily become something more serious.

If we wish for security and stability in our romantic relationships,

then, we must stick to monogamy. This maneuver, I must say, strikes me

as tenuous. Surely much of the time, we can reasonably be confident that

the potential for a close emotional bond with another is low, and that

the connection is purely or primarily sexual. Nevertheless, we can set

that issue aside. For there lurks a deeper problem here. To see what it

is, let us imagine a case in which a casual sexual relationship does

morph into something more serious. It begins with two acquaintances who

decide to indulge in the occasional hookup. At this stage, their

connection will not be emotionally draining, since it lacks an emotional

bond altogether. Now imagine, though, that over time their connection

comes to hold a deeper emotional significance. The two come to have not

just a sexual acquaintanceship, but a sexual friendship. Surely this new

stage of their connection need not be emotionally burdensome—not more

than any other friendship, anyway. Now imagine, lastly, that their

sexual friendship becomes more serious still—indeed, that it becomes a

close friendship. Must it now be emotionally burdensome?

No again, it seems. After all, close friendship is not something we in

general find emotionally taxing—more truly the opposite, in fact.

Rather, in our close friendships we find a source of love, support, and

empathy. And even when close friendships do contain challenges, such as

moments of stress or tension, these do not tend to be dominant or

definitive features of the friendship; they are the exception rather

than the rule. On the whole, our close friendships energize, encourage,

and empower us. And their doing so does not appear at all contingent on

whether they happen to involve sex. Thus, we may conclude that the above

partners’ connection in its final stage need not be emotionally

draining. And now for the crucial point: Their connection in its final

stage just is a romantic relationship. In having a sexual relationship

that is equally a friendship—and not just a friendship, but a close

friendship— the partners hold a deep bond both physically and

emotionally. It is precisely this kind of bond that is a hallmark of

romantic relationships. The result we face, then, is that romantic

relationships need not be so emotionally burdensome after all.

Why might it seem to so many that romantic relationships, by their very

nature, leave us emotionally exhausted? One thing that might explain the

popularity of this thought is the common assumption that one’s partner

is supposed to meet all of one’s deepest personal needs, such as love,

sex, and companionship. In holding this assumption, partners subject

themselves to a more stringent standard of behavior in their

relationships. Any failure of either partner to meet the other’s

personal needs will present itself as a grinding obstacle that must be

set straight, should it be possible, in order to have a proper

relationship. To live under such a standard can no doubt be tiring.

The assumption that one’s partner is supposed to meet all of one’s

personal needs, however, is itself a relic of monogamy. If one is

allowed to have no more than one partner at a time, then it is easy to

see why one’s partner would be expected to meet all of one’s personal

needs. When no one else is allowed to provide sex or romantic love,

failures of one’s partner to meet these needs will, barring cheating,

mean that these needs will go unmet. But absent a background of

monogamy, the assumption that one’s partner is supposed to meet all of

one’s personal needs collapses. If one is allowed to have multiple

partners at a time, after all, then failures of a certain partner to

meet some of one’s personal needs do not have to be grinding obstacles

in the way of a satisfying romantic life. For one can simply have those

needs be met by another partner. For example, for some partners the

focus can be on fulfilling sexual needs, while for other partners the

focus can be on emotional needs.

While such arrangements might at first seem strange, a similar pattern

holds in friendship: We do not expect a friend to be everything, to

provide everything, to meet all of our personal needs. (Indeed, imagine

that one did hold such an expectation of a friend—would we not find this

neurotic and absurd?) Some friends are valuable to us in some ways,

while other friends are valuable to us in other ways. Why should it not

be the same with our partners in romance?

2.5 The Jealousy Defense

I arrive now at what appears to be the most popular defense of monogamy,

the defense that comes almost immediately to everyone’s mind: the appeal

to jealousy. In jealousy our thoughts and feelings flail about within a

mire of crippling anxiety, despair, self-loathing, sometimes even rage.

And it all seems to come from seeing our partner take an interest in

someone else. What option is left to us partners, then, but a mutual

promise to forsake all others? At stake here is our comfort, our

happiness, our sanity. Only monogamy can keep us safe from jealousy;

that is its justification.

In the face of the sheer power of jealousy, it’s easy to lose sight of

the question of why we feel jealous. Yet that is a question worth posing

here at the outset, for jealousy, when we pause to reflect on it, truly

is odd. After all, when we see our partner find joy in someone else,

would it not make more sense for us to be happy for her? Would it not be

truer to our love, truer to our good will, to share in her joy? Surely

delight and encouragement are the right, the sensible, the mature—truly,

one might say the loving—reaction to our partner’s good. Why, then, when

our partner’s good happens to involve an interest in someone else, do we

feel so awful instead?

The answer, I think, can only be that we feel jealous precisely because

we are less rational and less mature than we could be. Were it not for

certain unreasonable fears and preconceptions that burden our minds, we

would react to our partner’s new love in the way that is so evidently

called for: by simply being happy for him. Which fears, which

preconceptions keep us from this? First and foremost here is the fear of

losing our partner to someone else. When we feel dread at the prospect

of our partner’s finding a new lover, what most often underlies our

feelings is the worry that our partner will come to desire her not in

addition to us, but instead of us. Second, what breeds jealousy further

is the common assumption that if our partner wishes for another or finds

happiness in another, this means that there’s something wrong with us

and our relationship—in short, that we’re “not enough” for our

partner.13 When we see any indication of interest in someone else as a

sign that our partner is dissatisfied with us, it’s only natural for us

to feel hurt at the sight of our partner taking interest in another.

Although other factors can play a role in jealousy, it is these two—the

fear of losing our partner to someone else, along with the assumption

that for our partner to show interest in someone else is a gesture of

dissatisfaction with us—that appear to lie most insidiously at its root.

Now that we have in mind these key factors behind jealousy, we are in a

better position to consider whether monogamy is the solution. Many

people take it as obvious that monogamy is the only answer, or at any

rate the best answer, to jealousy. In fact, however, this is far from

obvious. As is well known, monogamy does not preclude jealousy; indeed,

it is a commonplace in monogamous relationships to worry whether one’s

partner is interested in someone else, or even simply whether she might

become interested in someone else. Why is this? Wasn’t monogamy supposed

to ensure freedom from jealousy? As it turns out, it’s no surprise that

monogamy fails to preclude jealousy. For monogamy is not a way of

addressing the factors, described above, that underlie jealousy;

instead, it is merely a capitulation to them.

I use “capitulation” quite intentionally here. What I mean by it is

that, rather than confronting the underlying needs or problems that

jealousy indicates, monogamy is instead simply a way of avoiding

behaviors that trigger jealous feelings, even at the cost of restricting

the partners’ freedom and well-being. To see in more detail what I mean,

let’s consider an example from another context. Imagine that two

partners are beset by jealousy not of the romantic or sexual kind, but

jealousy of a kind that centers on one another’s accomplishments in the

workplace. Each fears seeing his own work become outmatched by that of

his partner. This fear, in turn, feeds on the partners’ shared

assumption that if one’s partner is producing superior work, that shows

one’s own work to be inadequate. In the face of their jealousy, the

partners mutually commit to putting out only mediocre work from now on;

that way, neither will feel jealous of the other’s accomplishments.

Now let us ask ourselves whether the partners have chosen a healthy,

desirable solution to their jealousy. Clearly not—and not simply because

the doubts and disquiets of jealousy remain likely to lurk in the

partners’ minds. (“Oh dear—what if he gets careless on his current

project and ends up producing something good?”) More deeply, what is

wrong is the very spirit, the very direction of the partners’ whole

approach to the matter. Rather than running away from their jealous

feelings, as it were, by restricting their behavior so as not to trigger

them, the partners should confront their jealous feelings head-on. They

should take responsibility for their feelings, seek to overcome their

insecurities, work to free themselves from the fears and false

assumptions that give rise to the problem in the first place. They

should, in short, take the path of greater maturity.

I’d now like to suggest that monogamy is analogous to the above case.

Monogamy, too, is a capitulation to jealousy. Just as with workplace

jealousy, the proper response to romantic and sexual jealousy is not to

restrict our behavior in order to avoid triggering it, but instead to

confront it head-on. Below I’ll say more about how we can do so. First,

though, we should take a moment to recognize just how counterproductive

monogamy’s capitulation to jealousy really is.

Not only does monogamy fail to be a guarantee against jealousy. Worse,

by capitulating to jealousy, monogamy in fact perpetuates it. To see

how, consider the opportunity costs that are a part of monogamy. If you

are in a monogamous relationship, your partner has committed not to be

with anyone else. By this simple fact, monogamy makes it much more

natural to worry about keeping your partner. For in being with you, your

partner is forgoing other options, and the only way for him to openly

pursue those options is to end his relationship with you. From here

seeps the unshakable awareness: “The more desirable those other options

seem, the more desirable it will seem to my partner to leave me for

someone else.” It’s this kind of relationship style that breeds jealousy

so well, that stokes the fear that your partner will decide to “trade

up.” Under monogamy, it’s all too natural to be concerned not simply

that your partner likes you, but that he does not like anyone else more.

Together with this heightened fear comes a sense of pressure: pressure

to be more impressive than the others, to ensure that you always one-up

the “competition” for your partner. (How sad it is that monogamy makes

the word competition come so naturally here, when talking about

something like the love of your partner!) And a trying task this often

is. As noted earlier, monogamy fosters an expectation that you’re to

fulfill all of your partner’s personal needs; after all, it’s not as if

she is allowed to reach out to other partners here. Naturally, facing

such a high standard only makes it easier to feel insecure, to worry

whether you’re really enough for your partner. In every mistake, every

shortcoming lies an invitation to wonder, “Might this just have led my

partner to think, even if only for a moment, that it’d be nicer if

someone else took my place?” All of this builds up a perfect environment

for jealousy to fester.

As these considerations suggest, monogamy is not the solution to

jealousy; indeed, it is largely what makes jealousy so persistent a

problem in the first place. The kind of context in which jealousy most

readily stews is that of a refusal to share, that of competition for

something—precisely the kind of context sustained by monogamy. By

abandoning monogamy, we destroy much of the lifeblood of jealousy.

Accordingly, it is with the abandonment of monogamy that the real

solution to jealousy begins.

But abandoning monogamy is only the first step. Other steps remain.

Rather than capitulating to jealousy in the vain hope that that will

make it go away, as monogamy does, these further steps involve

confronting jealousy directly. That is how we can best be assured of

being free of jealousy in the end—or, at the very least, assured that

whenever jealousy does arise, we will have healthy, effective ways of

coping with it and working through it.

Here, more specifically, are some of the key steps by which we can

confront jealousy directly. The first is simply to realize how

irrational jealousy is. Jealousy is built on a bed of unreasonable fears

and false preconceptions. Consider, first, the assumption that for your

partner to feel interest in someone else is a sign of dissatisfaction

with you, a sign that you are “not enough” for him. Implicit in this

idea is a view of relationships as driven by a need to correct for

deficiency. In such a view, being a good partner is like filling an

empty receptacle: If you do your job well, there is nothing left to be

filled, nothing that your partner could possibly gain from having

another partner. Thus, if your partner does become interested in someone

else, it must be because of some deficiency in your partner’s life that

you’ve failed to offset, some portion of the receptacle that you’ve

failed to fill. But this is a false and pernicious view of

relationships. It’s not—or at least, it need not be, and arguably should

not be—as if we form relationships as a way of correcting for some

problem or deficiency in our lives; rather, we form relationships

because they are a source of value within our lives and within the lives

of our partners. And there’s no tension between having a perfectly fine

relationship with one partner while acknowledging that additional

relationships could make for additional sources of value within our life

and within the lives of others.15

Once more, we might consider an analogy with friendship. To make a new

friend is no indication at all that there’s something wrong with an

existing friend. It doesn’t even remotely suggest that the existing

friend “isn’t enough.” (And let’s imagine now that the existing friend

did confront us with such a charge. “What’s wrong—am I not enough for

you?” he demands. How sadly neurotic, how appallingly petty and immature

this would be!) After all, at least in typical, healthy cases, we form

friendships not to correct for some deficiency, but to add a source of

value to our lives and to the lives of our friends. The same, it seems,

holds true for love. Just as we have no reason to feel hurt when a

friend of ours makes an additional friend, we have no reason to feel

hurt when a partner of ours finds an additional partner.

Consider, next, the fear that is so central to jealousy: that of losing

a partner to someone else. When in the grip of this fear, we often

forget to ask ourselves a simple yet crucial question: If our

relationship is mutually fulfilling, shouldn’t we trust our partner not

to leave us for someone else? Of course, for many of us, being

monogamous will have made this a more difficult question to answer. As

noted earlier, under monogamy the stability of our relationship is not

just a matter of whether it’s fulfilling on its own terms; rather, it’s

likely also to be a matter of whether our partner perceives other

potential relationships as more fulfilling. To the extent that she does,

she’ll have reason to leave us for someone else. But let’s assume here

that we’ve already taken the first step toward overcoming jealousy,

namely abandoning monogamy. Absent monogamy, for our partner to suspect

that another relationship would be fulfilling, or even more fulfilling

than his relationship with us, need not present a reason for him to

leave us. For we’ve left it open to him to pursue others while staying

with us; we haven’t forced him to choose between us and another. With

this in mind, let’s come back to the above question: If our relationship

is mutually fulfilling, shouldn’t we trust our partner not to leave us

for someone else? It appears so. That our partner would leave us for

someone else—and would leave us despite being in a mutually fulfilling

relationship with us—does not seem like the kind of prospect toward

which it is reasonable to harbor so much fear. By realizing and

reflecting on this, we are likely to loosen the fear’s hold on us. (And

what if our relationship is not mutually fulfilling? Then, presumably,

it is not worth maintaining in the first place. For our partner to leave

us for someone she’s happy with would then be something to be welcomed,

not feared.)

Admittedly, there are circumstances that make more salient the prospect

of your partner’s leaving you for someone else. For example, what if

your partner discovers that she would find being with a certain other

person even more fulfilling than being with you, yet this other person

lives far away, in someplace you cannot move to? In order to be with the

other, your partner would have to move away from you. In cases like

this, it might seem that there’s good reason to fear that your partner

will leave you for someone else. It might seem, further, that monogamy

would function as a kind of protective barrier here; if two partners

have decided to restrict themselves from sex and romance with outsiders,

then each partner is less likely to discover that there is someone else

with whom he has better sex, to whom he feels a deeper romantic

connection, or with whom he otherwise gets along better.

Yet there is something puzzling, if not deeply unsettling, in the hope

that your partner will remain ignorant of options that are better for

her. While seeing your partner abandon you for another is no doubt

painful, consider the nature of the alternative just described: a case

in which your partner stays with you only because, given monogamous

restrictions, she has not experienced a certain other person—a person

whom she would in fact be happier with. Is that really that desirable a

state of affairs? Indeed, is it not that state of affairs that we should

be more concerned to avoid here? When leaving us for someone else is the

path to a more fulfilling romantic life for our partner, should we not

want that for him? However much it may crush us to see our partner leave

us behind in this way, our love and care for her should lead us to want

what’s best for her. Even when it is reasonable, then, to suspect that

our partner will leave us for someone she’s happier with, that is a

prospect to be welcomed rather than feared.

To welcome such a prospect might seem to require a high degree of

emotional independence from one’s partner—and, indeed, it almost

certainly does. By “emotional independence” here I do not at all mean a

lack of love or affection, but rather, being comfortable with oneself,

satisfied with oneself, secure in oneself. To be emotionally independent

in this sense is to understand that, however much one treasures one’s

relationship, one does not require one’s partner for one to happy; one

could still live a deeply fulfilling life even if one’s partner decided

to leave. The more one attains this kind of emotional independence and

maturity, the less one is likely to suffer from the insecurity that lies

at the core of jealousy. As ever, the most genuine security comes from

within. Just as one should be prepared to face life should one’s partner

die, one should be prepared to face life should one’s partner decide to

leave.

Abandoning monogamy, recognizing the irrationality of jealousy, and

cultivating emotional independence are together a foundation for

overcoming jealousy. Of course, they do not guarantee that one will

never feel jealous at all. Many nonmonogamous relationships involve

occasional moments of jealousy. But then, many non-monogamous

relationships have likewise been the site of partners’ discovering

powerful ways of coping with and working through their jealousy. Such

experiences suggest that jealousy is not something to which partners in

a non-monogamous relationship must resign themselves. Rather, when

partners in a non-monogamous relationship find themselves feeling

jealous, they can simply accept it as a challenge to be managed

constructively, much like other challenges that arise in relationships.

3 Conclusion

With that I conclude my responses to what are, in my view, the most

prominent defenses of monogamy. If my responses are on the mark, these

defenses all fail. Of course, there are other, less well-known defenses.

Regrettably, I cannot respond to them here. And even if these further

defenses likewise fail, there remains the possibility that newer, better

defenses of monogamy will arise. Still, given the apparent failure of

what might have seemed its flagship defenses, monogamy is in a bad way.

Unless some other defense turns out to succeed where its more prominent

forerunners have failed, monogamous restrictions will, by all

indications, be analogous to the morally troubling restriction on having

additional friends. Thus, while the case I’ve advanced against monogamy

is not conclusive, it is, at the very least, suggestive. However far the

matter remains from being settled, the evidence thus far points largely

in one direction: We morally ought to reject monogamy. Just as one

morally ought to allow one’s partner to have additional friends, one

morally ought to allow one’s partner to have additional partners.

A few final clarifications are called for. First, in suggesting that

non-monogamy is morally required, I’m not suggesting that partners have

no right to be monogamous. That is, I’m not suggesting that partners

ought to be coercively prevented from holding one another to monogamous

restrictions (whatever such coercive prevention would mean in practice).

Even if a certain restriction is immoral, partners could still—and, I

believe, often or typically do—have the right to hold one another to it.

This, at any rate, is what I take the case to be with monogamy. Partners

indeed have the right to be monogamous, though that does not suffice to

make monogamy right.

Second, at this point some might feel a lingering worry: Isn’t

non-monogamy a radical lifestyle change? Could people really be expected

to abandon so much of what is familiar to their romantic life? In fact,

however, non-monogamy need not pose as radical a lifestyle shift as it

might seem. Contrary to what people often assume, being non-monogamous

does not mean that one must maintain multiple relationships at a time.

After all, one can be non-monogamous and in a relationship with only one

person at a certain time—for example, in a case in which one simply

hasn’t found others in whom one is interested. For that matter, one can

even be non-monogamous while single, just as one can be monogamous while

single. What being non-monogamous means, rather, is simply that one is

open to having multiple relationships at a time—open in the sense of

rejecting restrictions thereon—both for oneself and whatever partners

one might have.

Thus, even if you have little desire to pursue multiple relationships at

a time, you can live accordingly while remaining non-monogamous. You can

stick to relationships with only one person at a time; the key is simply

that you remain open to your partner’s having multiple relationships at

a time, should she desire it. Now, if your partner likewise has no

interest in pursuing multiple relationships at a time, then your

relationship with him will, from a certain distance, appear no different

from a typical, monogamous relationship. Crucially, though, in being

non-monogamous, you and your partner would both remain open to having

multiple relationships at a time. That is, you and your partner would

recognize that if either of you does come to desire an additional

relationship, neither of you will in principle stand opposed to pursuing

it. It is this openness, rather than the actual state of being in

multiple relationships at a time, that is the essence of non-monogamy.